Profile of an ETF — net assets, expense ratio, dividend yield, top holdings, and sector breakdown. Mirrors what the website shows in /analysis for ETFs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ticker | Yes | ETF ticker (e.g. SPY, QQQ, VTI) | |
| holdings_limit | No | Top holdings to show; default 10 |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds behavioral context by specifying exactly what data is returned and noting that it mirrors the website's /analysis view, which implies a standard, non-custom response. This goes beyond the structured annotations.
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?
The description is two concise sentences. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose with a dash-separated list of output fields. The second adds useful website context without redundancy. Every word 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 2-parameter tool with strong annotations and full schema coverage, the description adequately conveys the data content and source. It does not describe the return format, but no output schema exists and the profile concept is implied. Given the low complexity, the description is nearly complete.
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% with clear descriptions for both parameters: ticker includes examples, holdings_limit includes min/max/default. The description mentions 'top holdings' which loosely connects to holdings_limit, but it does not add new parameter-level meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 clearly states the tool returns a profile of an ETF with specific fields: net assets, expense ratio, dividend yield, top holdings, and sector breakdown. It also differentiates from sibling tools by explicitly targeting ETFs and referencing the website's /analysis page for ETFs, making its purpose unambiguous.
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 gives clear context by saying it mirrors the website's /analysis for ETFs, implying this is the ETF-specific profile tool. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the ETF focus and field list make the usage context evident.
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.
With 57 tools, most have distinct purposes (market data, journaling, watchlists). A few related tools (get_price_alignment vs get_crypto_price_alignment, get_market_pulse vs get_market_movers) could cause miselection, but descriptions clarify asset types and scope.
Tools predominantly use get_/list_/create_/update_/delete_ verbs with clear noun suffixes. Minor deviations like start_here, whoami, add_to_watchlist, and remove_from_watchlist break the pure verb_noun pattern, but the style is consistent and readable.
At 57 tools, the server is far beyond the well-scoped range. While the domain is broad, this many tools will overwhelm an agent's capability to select accurately, and many could be consolidated (e.g., separate financial statements).
The server covers watchlist CRUD, trading journaling, market data (fundamentals, statements, news, transcripts), analysis tools, and community features. No obvious dead ends; lifecycle coverage is thorough for the described domain.
