Fetch one fund's metadata by ticker (code): name, type (ETF or FUND), exchange, currency, ISIN, active/inactive status, and the date range for which return data exists. Returns 404 if the ticker is unknown. Use searchFunds to resolve a name to a code; use the returns tools for performance.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pathParams | Yes | ||
| queryParams | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / pathParams / properties / code / descriptionAdded value: +"The fund's bare ticker, case-sensitive — e.g. `SPY`, `QQQ`, `VTSAX`. If you only have a name, resolve it with searchFunds first."Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses the 404 behavior for unknown tickers and clarifies that the market parameter has no effect on lookups. Since no annotations are provided, these are useful behavioral hints, though it does not explicitly state the operation is read-only or mention other potential error conditions.
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, two sentences, and directly conveys the purpose, return contents, error behavior, and sibling-tool guidance. No redundant or extraneous information is included.
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?
The description covers what metadata is returned (name, type, exchange, currency, ISIN, active/inactive, date range), the 404 error for unknown tickers, and points to sibling tools for related use cases. Given there is no output schema, this provides sufficient context for an agent to decide when and how to use the tool.
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?
While the tool description itself does not elaborate on parameters, the input schema provides clear descriptions for both 'code' (bare ticker, case-sensitive, examples) and 'market' (default US, informational). The description also reinforces the meaning of 'code' by referring to it as a ticker, and the schema fully covers the semantics.
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 a single fund's metadata by ticker, listing the exact fields returned. It also explicitly differentiates from sibling tools: searchFunds for name resolution and returns tools for performance data, leaving no ambiguity about the tool's role.
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 gives explicit direction on when to use this tool versus alternatives: use searchFunds to resolve a name, and use returns tools for performance. It also notes the market parameter is informational and does not affect lookups, preventing misuse.
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.