DCF building blocks for a stock in one call — current price, shares outstanding, beta, net debt, trailing FCF, 4-year FCF history and CAGR, revenue growth, and the 10-year Treasury as risk-free rate. The same pre-computed inputs the site's Valuation Lab uses; saves stitching five separate calls.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ticker | Yes | Stock ticker (e.g. AAPL). Stocks only — a DCF isn't meaningful for ETFs or crypto. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds context about the consolidated nature of the call and that it returns pre-computed inputs similar to the Valuation Lab. It also specifies the stock-only scope, adding value beyond 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 a single dense sentence with a list of data points, but it's efficient and front-loaded with the purpose. It could be slightly better structured by breaking into two sentences, but it's far from wasteful.
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 one-parameter read-only tool with strong annotations, the description lists all the expected data points and explains the use case. It doesn't mention error handling or return format, but that's less critical given the rich list. Not a full 5 because it lacks any caveats about data availability or format.
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 for ticker is 100% with a description saying 'Stocks only — a DCF isn't meaningful for ETFs or crypto.' The description doesn't add much beyond that, so 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 what the tool does: provides DCF building blocks for a stock in one call, listing specific data points. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by noting it saves stitching five separate calls and is the same pre-computed inputs as the site's Valuation Lab.
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?
It provides clear context for when to use this tool: when needing DCF inputs for a stock. It implies that this replaces multiple separate calls ('saves stitching five separate calls'), but it doesn't explicitly name those alternatives or state when not to use it, so not a perfect 5.
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.
