[Finance & Markets] Get stock market data for a ticker symbol from Yahoo Finance. Returns price, volume, market cap, PE ratio, dividend yield, and historical data.
Args: ticker: Stock ticker symbol (e.g. "AAPL", "GOOGL", "TSLA", "MSFT")
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ticker | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds value by specifying the data source (Yahoo Finance) and the types of data returned (price, volume, market cap, etc.), which goes beyond 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 very concise (two sentences) and well-structured: category, action, data specifics, then parameter details. No filler.
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?
Given the simple nature of the tool (one parameter, no output schema, annotations present), the description covers purpose, source, return fields, and parameter format. It is sufficiently complete for an AI agent to use correctly.
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?
The schema provides only the name and type for 'ticker', with 0% coverage. The description explains it's a stock ticker symbol and gives examples, adding crucial context that the schema lacks.
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 it gets stock market data for a ticker symbol from Yahoo Finance, and lists specific data fields. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like yahoo-finance__get_stock_quote or finance__get_crypto_prices.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., yahoo-finance__get_stock_quote for a quick quote, or finance__screen_stocks for screening). No when-not or prerequisites.
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.
Many tools have overlapping functionality across categories (e.g., multiple search_arxiv, search_google_scholar, real estate tools, DNS/WHOIS checks). An agent would struggle to differentiate between similar tools from different categories, leading to ambiguity.
Tools follow a 'category__verb_noun' pattern mostly, but verbs vary (get, search, screen, check, etc.) and some categories use different orders (e.g., 'get_repo_stats' vs 'search_repos'). The consistency is acceptable but not uniform across the entire set.
With 152 tools, the server is excessively large for a single MCP server. While it aims to be an all-in-one gateway, the sheer number overwhelms the agent and likely exceeds practical limits for coherent selection.
The server covers a wide range of domains (finance, real estate, news, developer tools, etc.) but has notable gaps (e.g., social media APIs, CRM tools). Coverage is broad but not exhaustive, and some niche areas (e.g., global stock exchanges) are over-represented.