SiteCheck Crypto & Finance

Morningstar quote page data for a US stock, ETF or mutual

dev_morningstar

Read-only

Morningstar quote page data for a US stock, ETF or mutual fund: name, ticker, Morningstar star rating, key statistics shown free on the page (stocks: previous close, day and 52-week range, bid/ask, market cap, P/E, P/S, dividend yield, sector, industry, style box, employees), top-10 holdings with weight, market value and sector plus portfolio date (ETFs/funds), and the analyst report headline. Subscriber-only values are omitted. Price: $0.002 in USDC per successful call, paid with x402 (Base, Solana or Arc); failed calls are not charged.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "type": "<type>",
      "ticker": "<ticker>"
    },
    "name": "dev_morningstar"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`type`	Yes	stock, etf or fund
`ticker`	Yes	Ticker, e.g. AAPL, SPY, VFIAX
`exchange`	No	Morningstar exchange code (default xnas for stocks/funds, arcx for ETFs; e.g. xnys, bats)

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	No
`type`	No
`source`	No
`ticker`	No
`exchange`	No
`keyStats`	No
`checkedAt`	No
`portfolio`	No
`starRating`	No
`topHoldings`	No
`analystReport`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 23, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Beyond readOnlyHint/openWorldHint, the description discloses two traits the annotations cannot: subscriber-only values are omitted (so the agent knows gaps are intentional, not errors) and each successful call costs $0.002 USDC via x402 on Base/Solana/Arc with failed calls uncharged. That cost/charging model is exactly the kind of behavioral detail agents need before invoking. It stops short of describing latency, rate limits, or failure modes.

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?

Front-loaded with the resource and scope, then the payment terms, with no filler sentences. The long enumerated field list is informative but partially duplicates the output schema, so it is slightly longer than strictly necessary.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With an output schema present and 100% schema coverage, the description need not explain return structure, yet it still summarizes coverage limits and payment mechanics. The main remaining gap is the absence of routing guidance among the many finance siblings, which keeps it from a full 5.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents type, ticker, and the exchange default (xnas for stocks/funds, arcx for ETFs), which sets the baseline at 3. The description does add type-conditional meaning by differentiating stock fields from ETF/fund holdings fields, but it never mentions the exchange parameter or valid asset-class tradeoffs.

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?

States a specific verb-free but precise resource: 'Morningstar quote page data for a US stock, ETF or mutual fund', then enumerates exactly what is returned (star rating, key statistics, top-10 holdings with weight, analyst report headline). The US-only, free-page-only scope and asset-class constraint make it clearly distinguishable from crypto and general finance siblings.

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 implies when it is appropriate (US stocks/ETFs/funds, free-tier Morningstar data) and notes paid pricing per successful call, which helps an agent judge cost. However, it names no alternative sibling (e.g. finance_yahoo_finance, finance_finviz, finance_stockanalysis) and gives no explicit when-not-to-use condition or prerequisite for x402 payment setup.

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

All SiteCheck Crypto & Finance tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?