Returns the best-performing experts ranked by TipRanks success rate and average return.
Args:
expert_type: One of: analyst, insider, hedgeFund, blogger, firm (default: analyst)
num: Number of results (default: 10, max: 25)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| num | No | ||
| expert_type | No | One of: analyst, insider, hedgeFund, blogger, firm (default: analyst) | analyst |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -{
- "properties": {
- "result": {
- "title": "Result",
- "type": "string"
- }
- },
- "required": [
- "result"
- ],
- "title": "get_best_performing_expertsOutput",
- "type": "object"
-}New value: +nullDoes the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds ranking criteria and a max of 25 results, but does not disclose error behavior or whether results are sorted ascending/descending beyond the stated ranking.
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 two short sections: a purpose line and a parameter list with defaults and constraints. No fluff, front-loaded purpose, easily skimmable.
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 query with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers what it returns and how to call it. It doesn't specify the return structure, but that's not critical for this simple tool.
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?
For expert_type, the description repeats the schema's allowed values, but for num it adds the max 25 constraint that the schema lacks. This compensates for the schema's 50% coverage and clarifies usage.
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?
Clearly states it returns the best-performing experts ranked by TipRanks success rate and average return, which is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_analysts_by_firm or get_top_rated_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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions or provide context such as 'use this for leaderboard rankings' or 'not for detailed analyst profiles'.
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.