Trailing total returns for up to 100 funds in one call - same data as getTrailingReturns. Pass codes and optional as_of. One row per fund; funds with no data are omitted and order is not guaranteed, so match on code. Values are decimal fractions, total return, distributions reinvested. Use this to compare or screen funds.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / body / properties / codes / descriptionPrevious value: -"Bare tickers, e.g. ['SPY', 'QQQ']."New value: +"1–100 bare tickers, case-sensitive, e.g. [\"SPY\", \"QQQ\", \"VTSAX\"]."Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses important runtime behavior: funds without data are omitted, row order is not guaranteed, and matching is done via the code field. It also clarifies that values are decimal fractions representing total return with distributions reinvested. It does not mention error handling or rate limits, but these are not critical for basic usage.
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?
The description is concise and to the point, with no redundant information. Every sentence adds value, covering purpose, key parameters, output characteristics, and typical use case in a compact form.
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?
Although no output schema is provided, the description gives enough context about the output format (one row per fund, omitted for missing data, decimal fractions, etc.) for a user to understand what to expect. It could potentially mention the exact response structure or required permissions, but that is not essential given the level of detail provided.
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?
The description explicitly explains codes and as_of, and the schema provides descriptions for codes and market, leaving as_of without a textual description but its type and nullability are clear. The market parameter is described as informational and reserved for future use, which is sufficiently clear. Overall parameters are well-covered.
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?
The description clearly states the tool fetches trailing total returns for up to 100 funds in a single call and explicitly distinguishes it from getTrailingReturns by noting it is the same data in batch form. The scope (multi-fund comparison/screening) is unambiguous.
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?
It explicitly says 'Use this to compare or screen funds' and references getTrailingReturns for parity, giving a clear primary use case. It does not explicitly contrast with batchCalendarReturns or other siblings, but the purpose is clear enough for most selection scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.