Skip to main content
Glama

TipRanks

by com.tipranks

get_recent_analyst_ratings

Read-onlyIdempotent

Recent Wall Street analyst rating actions on a single stock, covering the trailing 12 months (newest first).

Each row carries the analyst's name and firm, the rating (Buy/Hold/Sell),
the action (initiated/upgraded/downgraded/reiterated/maintained), the price
target, and the analyst's TipRanks credibility (numOfStars 0-5, rank,
success rate, average return) plus the source article title/quote.

For the aggregate consensus and average/best price target, use
get_assets_data instead.

Args:
    ticker: Stock ticker (e.g. 'NVDA', 'AAPL').

Returns: a list of rating actions. recommendationDate is a 'MM/DD/YYYY'
         string; numOfStars is the analyst's 0-5 TipRanks star rating.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tickerYes

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, establishing a safe read-only operation. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: the 12-month window, newest-first ordering, and exact return fields (including numOfStars semantics and date format). It does not contradict annotations.

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 description is moderately detailed but every sentence serves a purpose: scoping the time range, enumerating row fields, contrasting with an alternative, and documenting arguments/returns. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and structured with 'Args' and 'Returns', making it easy to scan without being wasteful.

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?

For a read-only single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description thoroughly covers the return shape (list of rating actions, fields, types, date format). It also flags the sister tool for consensus data, so an agent has full context to choose correctly and interpret results. No gaps remain.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 0% for the single 'ticker' parameter, but the description compensates with 'ticker: Stock ticker (e.g. 'NVDA', 'AAPL')', providing type and concrete examples. This fully explains the one required parameter, though it could add detail on accepted formats (e.g., case sensitivity) – still strong given the schema's lack of info.

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 retrieves recent Wall Street analyst rating actions for a single stock over the trailing 12 months, newest first. It explicitly distinguishes itself from get_assets_data for aggregate consensus, making the specific resource and scope unambiguous.

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 provides explicit guidance: 'For the aggregate consensus and average/best price target, use get_assets_data instead.' This tells the agent when to prefer an alternative, and the tool's own use case (detailed individual analyst actions) is clear from the opening sentence.

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

All TipRanks toolsInspect
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