SiteCheck Crypto & Finance

StockAnalysis company identity for one stock ticker

finance_stockanalysis

Read-only

StockAnalysis company identity for one stock ticker: company name, legal name, ticker and the page description, read from the schema.org JSON-LD on the public stock page. Financial figures are not included. Related tools on this server, for a different need: finance_finviz when you need Finviz quote snapshot for one stock ticker: the key; finance_bstock when you need B-Stock wholesale liquidation auctions: total live lots. 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": {
      "symbol": "<symbol>"
    },
    "name": "finance_stockanalysis"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`symbol`	Yes	Stock ticker, e.g. AAPL, MSFT

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	No
`source`	No
`symbol`	No
`checkedAt`	No
`legalName`	No
`description`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 23, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description goes well beyond them: it names the data source (schema.org JSON-LD on the public stock page), discloses that no financial figures are returned, and specifies the billing model ($0.002 USDC per successful call via x402 on Base, Solana or Arc, no charge on failure). That billing/permission context is genuinely useful, though it says nothing about behavior on an invalid or delisted ticker.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The purpose and exclusion are front-loaded well, but the middle sentence is a run-on 'related tools' list padded with boilerplate ('Related tools on this server, for a different need') and includes finance_bstock wholesale liquidation auctions, which is irrelevant to a stock-identity lookup. The pricing clause is useful but tacked on as a dense trailing sentence.

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?

For a single-parameter, read-only lookup with an output schema, the description covers what matters: field contents, data provenance, an explicit exclusion, alternatives, and cost. The only gap is edge-case behavior for missing or ambiguous symbols, which keeps it from a 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?

With one parameter at 100% schema coverage, the schema already fully documents 'symbol' including an example. The description only reinforces the single-ticker constraint ('one stock ticker') without adding format, exchange-prefix, or case-sensitivity rules, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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-and-resource pair ('company identity for one stock ticker') and enumerates exactly which fields are returned (company name, legal name, ticker, page description). It also draws an explicit boundary ('Financial figures are not included') and names the sibling to use for quote data, so an agent can distinguish it from finance_finviz without opening either schema.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Gives a clear usage context (resolve company identity from a ticker) plus an explicit exclusion pointing to finance_finviz for quote snapshots and finance_bstock for a different domain. It falls short of 5 because it does not address other plausible alternatives on this large sibling list (e.g. finance_yahoo_finance, finance_stooq_historical_stocks) or say when this tool should be skipped in favor of a broader market-data tool.

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?