[Regulatory Filings] Retrieve Wall Street analyst price targets for a ticker — high, low, mean, latest changes by firm.
Args: ticker: Required ticker symbol
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ticker | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds that it returns high, low, mean, and latest changes by firm, which is helpful but does not disclose potential side effects or limitations beyond what annotations imply. No contradiction.
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 sentence plus a parameter line, front-loaded with the action, and no extraneous words. Highly concise.
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 read-only tool with one parameter, the description adequately explains the output (high, low, mean, latest changes). It does not detail result structure or pagination, but the specified data points provide sufficient context.
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 description repeats the schema information: 'ticker: Required ticker symbol'. With 0% schema description coverage, it adds minimal value—just clarifying that ticker is a symbol, but no format or examples.
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 retrieves Wall Street analyst price targets for a ticker, specifying data points (high, low, mean, latest changes by firm). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_earnings_estimates' by focusing on price targets.
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., 'get_earnings_estimates' or 'get_form_13f_holdings'). The description does not mention exclusions or context.
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.