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) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds useful behavioral detail by listing what the tool returns (price, P/E ratio, dividend yield, market cap, earnings, revenue, relative performance). No contradictions; could add data freshness or error caveats but is solid given the safety 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?
Two well-structured sentences: the first states the core purpose and metric list, the second adds use cases. No redundant or filler content; every clause contributes meaning.
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 no output schema, the description compensates by naming the returned metrics and the intended use cases. It is complete enough for a comparison tool, though it could slightly expand on response structure or limitations (e.g., invalid/blank tickers).
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 single 'tickers' parameter is fully covered in the input schema (100% coverage), including the minimum-2 guidance. The description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond restating 'multiple', so the schema carries the load.
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 opens with the specific verb 'Compare' and a clear resource ('multiple stock securities side-by-side'), then enumerates the key financial metrics returned. This distinguishes it from sibling quote tools by emphasizing comparison and relative performance.
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 gives clear usage context: 'Use for investment analysis, selecting between stocks, or portfolio optimization.' It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the comparison focus differentiates it from simple quote tools.
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.
Each tool has a distinct primary purpose: single quote vs. multiple quotes vs. side-by-side comparison. Some overlap exists between get_multiple_quotes and compare_stocks since both involve multiple securities, but the descriptions clarify that compare_stocks focuses on analytical metrics and relative performance, while get_multiple_quotes is for quick quote retrieval.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using snake_case: compare_stocks, get_multiple_quotes, get_stock_quote. The verbs 'compare' and 'get' are used predictably, and the nouns clearly indicate the target (stocks, quotes, stock_quote).
With 3 tools, the server is minimal but not unreasonably sparse for a quote-focused service. Each tool covers a distinct use case (single, multiple, comparison), so every tool earns its place. It is slightly under-scoped for a full Yahoo Finance API, but appropriate for a focused quote/comparison tool.
The domain is stock quotes and comparison, and the server covers the core operations: get a single quote, get multiple quotes, and compare securities with key metrics. Minor gaps exist, such as lack of historical data or ticker search, but these are workable around and not critical for the apparent purpose of real-time monitoring and investment comparison.