TipRanks

get_trending_stocks

Read-onlyIdempotent

Returns currently trending stocks that recently received analyst ratings.

Args:
    num: Number of results (default 20)
    filter: exactly one of 'analysts', 'bloggers', 'both'. Anything else is
            refused — the feed would otherwise answer it with the 'both' list.
    daysAgo: Days to look back: 3, 7, or any number from 30 up. Every other value
             (1, 2, 14…) is rejected by the feed. Default 7. Pass 30 or more when
             filtering by sector or country to ensure enough results — narrow
             windows often return fewer than 5 stocks in a specific sector.
    trendingType: exactly 'best-rated' or 'worst-rated' (empty for all). Anything
             else is refused — the feed would otherwise return the unranked list.
    country: 'US','Canada','UK','Germany','Israel','Australia' etc.
    sector: One of energy, financial, general, healthcare, industrials, services,
            technology, utilities. Empty for all sectors. This feed answers a
            sector it does not recognise with financial stocks rather than an
            error, so anything outside that list comes back refused instead.
            Rows returned for 'energy' are energy companies (Exxon, Chevron, BP)
            even though the feed tags them UTILITIES.

Returns: ticker, SmartScore, analyst/blogger sentiment, hedge fund trend,
         price target, buy/hold/sell counts per stock.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`num`	No
`filter`	No	Exactly one of 'analysts', 'bloggers' or 'both' (default: analysts). Any other value is rejected rather than answered.	analysts
`sector`	No	Sector filter: energy, financial, general, healthcare, industrials, services, technology or utilities. Omit for all sectors; a sector outside this list is refused rather than answered. Rows for sector='energy' are energy companies even though the feed labels them UTILITIES.
`country`	No	Country name, e.g. 'US','Canada','UK','Germany','Israel','Australia' (default: US)	US
`daysAgo`	No	Days to look back: 3, 7, or any number from 30 up — anything else (1, 2, 14…) is rejected. Default 7. Use 30 or more when filtering by sector or country, as narrow windows often return very few stocks.
`trendingType`	No	Exactly 'best-rated' or 'worst-rated'; omit for all (default). Any other value is rejected rather than silently returning the unranked list.

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already mark it read-only/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description goes further by disclosing non-obvious behaviors: invalid filter/trendingType values are refused rather than silently fallback, unknown sectors would otherwise return financial stocks, and 'energy' rows are labeled UTILITIES by the feed. It also enumerates the return fields. No contradiction with 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 long but every section carries useful edge-case information, structured with a purpose line, per-argument bullets, and a return list. It is somewhat redundant with schema descriptions, but the format is scannable and front-loaded.

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?

Despite the absence of an output schema, the description specifies the returned fields (ticker, SmartScore, sentiment, hedge fund trend, price target, buy/hold/sell counts) and covers all parameter constraints, defaults, and two data-quality quirks. An agent has enough information to call the tool correctly.

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 description coverage is 83%, so the schema already documents most parameters accurately. The description mostly restates the same constraints (e.g., daysAgo accepted values, sector refusal) and only adds a minimal 'default 20' for num, which is already in the schema default. It adds no meaning beyond the structured fields.

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 opens with a clear verb and resource: 'Returns currently trending stocks that recently received analyst ratings.' It does not explicitly name sibling tools like get_top_rated_stocks or get_recent_analyst_ratings, so differentiation relies on the 'trending' and 'recently received analyst ratings' phrasing rather than an explicit contrast.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description gives contextual parameter guidance, such as 'Pass 30 or more when filtering by sector or country to ensure enough results', and warns that invalid values are refused. However, it never states when to prefer this tool over the many sibling stock-rating tools, leaving usage to be inferred from the purpose line.

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?