yahoo-finance-mcp-server
Server Details
Yahoo fundamentals: earnings, P/E, analyst targets, peer comparisons for equity research.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 4/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.
Tools are mostly distinct: get_stock_quote for single stock details, get_multiple_quotes for bulk quotes, and compare_stocks for side-by-side comparison. There is slight overlap in metrics returned, but the purposes are clearly differentiated.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with snake_case: compare_stocks, get_multiple_quotes, get_stock_quote. The prefix 'get_' is used for retrieval, and 'compare_' for comparison, providing clear predictability.
With 3 tools, the server is minimal but covers basic stock quote retrieval and comparison. The scope is narrow, and while the count is acceptable for a focused utility, it feels slightly thin for a full-featured finance server.
The tool set lacks essential operations for a financial data server: no historical data, no search, no news, no market movers, and no advanced analytics. Significant gaps limit agent capabilities for comprehensive financial analysis.
Available Tools
3 toolscompare_stocksARead-onlyInspect
Compare multiple stock securities side-by-side with key financial metrics and performance data. Returns price, P/E ratio, dividend yield, market cap, earnings, revenue, and relative performance for comparison. Use for investment analysis, selecting between stocks, or portfolio optimization.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tickers | Yes | List of tickers to compare (minimum 2 for meaningful comparison) |
Tool Definition Quality
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 exact financial metrics returned (price, P/E ratio, etc.), going beyond the structured annotations without 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 consists of two efficient sentences: first describes the action, second details return data and use cases. No wasted words and front-loaded with the core purpose.
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 tool (1 param, no output schema, good annotations), the description covers purpose, return data, and use cases. It could briefly mention how comparison is presented (e.g., table), but overall sufficient.
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% and the parameter descriptions in the schema are already clear. The description does not add new meaning beyond what the schema provides. 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 uses a specific verb 'Compare' and resource 'stock securities side-by-side', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_multiple_quotes which likely just fetch quotes without comparison. It lists key metrics, making the tool's purpose unmistakable.
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 explicitly states use cases: 'investment analysis, selecting between stocks, or portfolio optimization'. However, it does not mention when not to use this tool versus siblings (e.g., if only single quote needed).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_multiple_quotesARead-onlyInspect
Fetch current stock quotes for multiple ticker symbols in one request. Returns price, change, volume, and key metrics for each stock. Use for portfolio monitoring, screening multiple stocks, or comparing multiple securities at once.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tickers | Yes | List of stock ticker symbols to retrieve quotes for |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, which description does not contradict. Description adds return fields (price, change, volume, key metrics) but lacks details on error handling, rate limits, or behavior for invalid tickers.
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?
Two sentences with front-loaded action and resource. Third sentence of use cases is somewhat redundant with the first, but overall concise and well-structured.
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 single parameter, absent output schema, and annotations present, the description adequately covers purpose, return fields, and usage context. Could mention error responses but not critical for this simple fetch.
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% (only 'tickers' parameter). Description adds the phrase 'in one request' but does not provide additional constraints, defaults, or validation beyond the schema description.
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?
Description clearly specifies verb (fetch/get) and resource (stock quotes for multiple tickers), and lists return fields. Implicitly distinguishes from sibling 'get_stock_quote' by emphasizing multiple symbols, but does not explicitly differentiate from 'compare_stocks'.
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?
Provides example use cases (portfolio monitoring, screening, comparing) but does not specify when to avoid this tool or mention alternatives like using get_stock_quote for a single ticker.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_stock_quoteARead-onlyInspect
Fetch the current stock market quote for an individual ticker symbol. Returns real-time price, intraday change (dollars and percentage), trading volume, market capitalization, P/E ratio, earnings per share, dividend yield, and 52-week high/low. Use for real-time price monitoring, investment decisions, or financial dashboards.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ticker | Yes | Stock ticker symbol in uppercase (e.g. 'AAPL', 'MSFT', 'NVDA', 'TSLA') |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds value by detailing the returned data fields (e.g., price, volume, P/E ratio, 52-week high/low) and confirming real-time nature, but does not disclose potential rate limits or data source limitations.
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 extremely concise: two sentences. The first sentence states the action and object, the second lists data fields and usage. No redundant words or paragraphs.
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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is quite complete. It explains what data is returned and typical use cases. It could mention any prerequisites or data source limitations, but openWorldHint suggests minimal constraints.
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 input schema has 100% coverage for the single 'ticker' parameter with a clear description. The description confirms it's for an individual ticker but adds little beyond the schema. Baseline score 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 fetches the current stock market quote for an individual ticker symbol. It explicitly mentions it's for a single ticker, distinguishing it from siblings like 'compare_stocks' and 'get_multiple_quotes' which handle multiple tickers.
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 explicit usage contexts: 'Use for real-time price monitoring, investment decisions, or financial dashboards.' However, it does not mention when not to use this tool or explicitly contrast with sibling tools, leaving room for slight ambiguity.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!