Company fundamentals for a stock — market cap, P/E, EPS, dividend yield, 52-week range, and up to 20 quarters of EPS history vs analyst consensus. Mirrors what the website shows in /analysis.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ticker | Yes | Stock ticker (e.g. AAPL). Not applicable to ETFs or crypto. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful context beyond this by enumerating the exact data fields returned and the source ('Mirrors what the website shows in /analysis'), giving the agent a clear expectation of the output without contradicting the 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 succinct sentences. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose and key data fields, and the second sentence provides a contextual reference. No filler or 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?
With one simple parameter and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers the tool's behavior by listing the return contents (market cap, P/E, EPS, dividend yield, 52-week range, EPS history vs consensus) and referencing the website's /analysis page. It could add more detail on timeframes (e.g., trailing vs forward P/E), but overall it's complete for tool selection and invocation.
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 only one parameter 'ticker', already described as 'Stock ticker (e.g. AAPL). Not applicable to ETFs or crypto.' The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 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's purpose: 'Company fundamentals for a stock' and lists specific data points (market cap, P/E, EPS, dividend yield, 52-week range, EPS history vs consensus). It distinguishes from sibling financial statement tools (income statement, balance sheet, cash flow) by presenting a comprehensive fundamentals snapshot.
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 provides clear context on when to use it: for a stock's fundamental snapshot. It implies this is the go-to comparison tool via 'Mirrors what the website shows in /analysis', but does not explicitly exclude alternatives like get_income_statement or specify when a sibling would be preferred. The schema adds 'Not applicable to ETFs or crypto', which is a useful exclusion.
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.
