compare_stocksPut two or more tickers side by side on verdict, fair value, upside and scores.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tickers | Yes | Tickers to compare. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| companies | Yes | ||
| not_covered | Yes | Tickers asked for that Talval does not cover. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "companies": {
+ "items": {
+ "properties": {
+ "conviction": {
+ "type": [
+ "integer",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "currency": {
+ "description": "Trading currency of the price and fair value.",
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "dividend_yield_pct": {
+ "description": "Percent, e.g. 2.9.",
+ "type": [
+ "number",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "fair_value": {
+ "type": [
+ "number",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "fair_value_usable": {
+ "type": "boolean"
+ },
+ "name": {
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "price": {
+ "type": [
+ "number",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "quality_score": {
+ "type": [
+ "number",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "safety_score": {
+ "type": [
+ "number",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "ticker": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "upside_pct": {
+ "description": "Percent, not a fraction: 12.5 means +12.5%.",
+ "type": [
+ "number",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "value_score": {
+ "type": [
+ "number",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "verdict": {
+ "description": "Undervalued, Fairly valued or Overvalued.",
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "ticker"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "not_covered": {
+ "description": "Tickers asked for that Talval does not cover.",
+ "items": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "companies",
+ "not_covered"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered and the description carries less burden. The description adds the comparison dimensions as output context, but discloses no additional behavior such as result ordering, caching, or partial-failure handling for invalid tickers.
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?
One sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, and every clause (the compared dimensions) carries information. No filler or redundancy.
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?
With an output schema present, the description needn't explain return values, and the sole parameter is fully covered by the schema. The only shortfall is the absence of routing guidance among the six siblings, which is a minor gap for such a simple tool.
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 description coverage is 100% and the single 'tickers' parameter is documented in the schema with minItems/maxItems constraints. The description's 'two or more tickers' merely echoes the schema's minItems=2, adding no syntax or format detail beyond it.
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+resource ('put two or more tickers side by side') and enumerates the compared dimensions (verdict, fair value, upside, scores), which makes it clearly a multi-ticker comparison rather than a single-entity lookup. It does not explicitly name or contrast any sibling, so it stops short of a 5.
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?
Usage is only implied: the phrase 'two or more tickers' suggests the tool is for multi-ticker comparison versus the single-ticker siblings like get_stock_research. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative such as screen_stocks.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.