get_company_scoreCurrent 24h and 7d signal strength for one company, with the tier word for each window. Scores are aggregated social sentiment, not a price prediction.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ticker | Yes | Ticker symbol, for example AAPL. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds useful context: scores are aggregated social sentiment, not a price prediction. However, it doesn't disclose what the tier word means, how scores are scaled, or what the response format looks like. With annotations covering the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences with zero waste. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the clarifying note about social sentiment vs price prediction is valuable context that prevents misuse. Every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read-only tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It explains the time windows, the tier word, and the nature of the score. The only minor gap is not explaining what the tier word represents or how the score is scaled, but this is a minor omission for a tool of this simplicity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% and there is only one parameter (ticker) with a clear example (AAPL). The description doesn't add much beyond the schema, but with a single well-documented parameter, the baseline 3 is correct. The description's mention of 'one company' reinforces that the ticker parameter is singular.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('get'), a clear resource ('signal strength for one company'), and the time windows (24h and 7d). It also distinguishes itself from a price prediction, which helps an agent understand what the tool is not. The sibling tools are different enough that this description clearly identifies this tool's unique purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use this tool: when you need current signal strength for a single company over 24h/7d windows. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context signals and sibling names (get_company_recaps, get_top_signals) make the usage context reasonably clear. A brief mention of when not to use it would push this to 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.