TipRanks

get_blogger_sentiment

Read-onlyIdempotent

Returns the financial-blogger consensus for a stock plus the underlying blogger articles.

Distinct from get_recent_analyst_ratings (Wall Street analysts) and
get_investor_sentiment (TipRanks crowd positioning).

Args:
    ticker: Stock ticker (e.g. 'AAPL')
    limit: Max blogger articles to return (default 20, max 50)

Returns JSON: {ticker, company, consensus, articles}.
  - consensus: {bullish_pct, bearish_pct, neutral_pct, bullish_count,
      bearish_count, neutral_count, score, avg}.
  - articles: [{blogger, title, url, site, date}] (newest first).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No
`ticker`	Yes

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds context about the return structure (consensus and articles) and parameter constraints (limit default 20, max 50), exceeding what annotations provide.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is well-structured with a clear purpose statement, sibling differentiation, and organized Args/Returns sections. Every line provides useful information without fluff or repetition.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool is simple (2 params, no nested objects), and the description covers purpose, parameters, and return structure in detail. No output schema exists, but the description outlines the exact JSON shape, making the tool's behavior fully transparent.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description fully compensates by explaining both parameters: ticker with an example ('AAPL') and limit with default and max values. This gives the agent complete understanding of how to invoke the tool.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool returns financial-blogger consensus for a stock plus underlying articles, which is specific and distinct from siblings. It explicitly names get_recent_analyst_ratings and get_investor_sentiment as different, ensuring no ambiguity about scope.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly distinguishes this tool from two related sibling tools, explaining what each alternative covers (Wall Street analysts vs. TipRanks crowd positioning). This gives the agent clear guidance on when to choose this tool over similar ones.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All TipRanks tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Disambiguation3/5

Many tools have overlapping purposes, e.g. get_etf_analysis vs get_etf_forecast both provide ETF analyst consensus, get_etf_holdings vs get_etf_top_stocks both list constituents, and get_portfolio_overview vs get_portfolio_performance both return returns/performance. The detailed descriptions help, but the sheer number of similar tools creates ambiguity in selection.

Naming Consistency4/5

The set is largely consistent with a 'get_' prefix and descriptive nouns (get_stock_quotes, get_crypto_quote, get_dividend_history). Minor deviations include 'list_my_portfolios' instead of 'get_my_portfolios' and singular/plural variants like get_all_commodities_quotes vs get_commodity_quote, but the pattern remains predictable.

Tool Count1/5

With 71 tools, the count far exceeds the 50+ threshold described as an extreme mismatch. Even though the server covers a broad financial domain, such a large surface is overwhelming for an agent and includes many redundant or highly specific tools that could be consolidated.

Completeness5/5

The tool set provides comprehensive coverage of TipRanks data: quotes and historical data for all major asset classes, news, earnings and economic calendars, analyst and sentiment data, financial statements, technical analysis, options, portfolios, and screeners. There are no obvious dead ends for typical financial research tasks.

Resources

Need Help?