Get FinBERT-based sentiment analysis of recent headlines for a ticker. Returns per-headline label/confidence/score plus an average score. Real model inference, not a fabricated estimate.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Number of recent headlines to analyze, 1-25. | |
| ticker | Yes | Ticker to analyze, e.g. 'AAPL'. | |
| api_key | No | XFINLAB Intelligence API key (X-API-Key). Omit if supplied via HTTP header instead. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the return shape (per-headline label/confidence/score plus average) and the key fact that this is real model inference rather than a fabricated estimate, which is useful context.
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?
Two compact sentences, no filler, with the primary purpose and return behavior front-loaded.
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?
Given there is no output schema, the description appropriately explains the return shape. It omits edge-case behavior or auth details, but the tool is simple and the essentials are covered.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains ticker, limit, and api_key. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides.
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?
States a specific verb (get), resource (FinBERT-based sentiment analysis of recent headlines), and target (ticker). Clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like get_technical_analysis or get_market_events.
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?
The description implies use when sentiment of recent ticker headlines is needed, and the sibling list contains no other sentiment tool. However, it does not state explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance or name alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.