TipRanks

get_market_movers

Read-onlyIdempotent

Returns today's market movers: biggest gainers, losers, most active.

Args:
    category: 1=DollarVolume, 2=PercentGainers, 3=PercentLosers,
              4=GainersRegular, 5=LosersRegular, 6=UnusualVolume
    country: 1=US, 2=Canada, 3=UK
    num: Number of results

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`num`	No
`country`	No	1=US, 2=Canada, 3=UK (default: 1)
`category`	Yes	1=DollarVolume, 2=PercentGainers (ext hours), 3=PercentLosers (ext hours), 4=GainersRegular, 5=LosersRegular, 6=UnusualVolume

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and the description adds no contradictory behavioral traits. It includes category meanings, but these are also present in the schema. No extra context like pagination, data freshness, or limitations is provided.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The purpose sentence is front-loaded and the Args list is compact and readable. However, it duplicates some information already in the schema, making it slightly redundant though still efficient.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a read-only tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description covers all parameter meanings and the types of movers returned. It could mention the return format (e.g., a list of tickers) but remains adequate for understanding the tool's capabilities.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 67%, and the description largely repeats the same numeric codes for category and country. It adds minimal semantics for 'num' as 'Number of results,' which is somewhat self-evident, so it does not significantly enhance the schema.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states it returns today's market movers with specific categories (gainers, losers, most active), using the verb 'Returns' and a specific resource. It is distinguishable from siblings like get_market_performance, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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 similar market data tools, nor any exclusions or alternative tool names. The description only explains what it returns, not when it should be selected.

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?