fetchFetch the full technical record for one stock by id, ticker, or company name. Returns a readable summary and structured metadata.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Ticker or company name, e.g. '005930' or 'SK Hynix'. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context about the return format ('readable summary and structured metadata'), which goes beyond the annotations. However, it does not disclose potential error conditions, rate limits, or authentication requirements. With annotations covering safety, a score of 3 is appropriate.
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 a single sentence that efficiently conveys both the action and the output. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, and every phrase adds value. No redundant or irrelevant content.
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?
For a simple 1-parameter read-only fetch tool without an output schema, the description adequately covers the purpose and return format. However, it does not clarify how this tool differs from the closely named sibling 'get_technical_analysis', which could cause selection ambiguity. More context on distinguishing factors would be helpful.
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 schema parameter description fully covers the parameter semantics (ticker or company name with examples). The tool description repeats this information without adding new details. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3, and there is no extra value from the description.
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 the full technical record for one stock, with the resource being 'stock technicals' and the verb 'fetch'. It also specifies identification via ticker or company name. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling 'get_technical_analysis', which may overlap in functionality.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or comparisons to other tools such as 'screen_technicals' or 'search'. The only implied usage is that it is for a single stock, but no explicit when-to-use guidance is given.
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.
fetch and get_technical_analysis overlap in retrieving technical data for a stock, though fetch provides a full record while get_technical_analysis is limited to cached levels. search, list_covered_stocks, and screen_technicals are more distinct but still share the browsing/screening space.
The naming mixes short verbs (fetch, search) with longer verb_noun phrases (list_covered_stocks, screen_technicals) and a verb_adjective_noun (get_technical_analysis). The patterns are not consistent, but all names are readable and actions are inferable.
With 5 tools, the server is well-scoped for a technical analysis domain. Each tool addresses a core need: retrieve, analyze, list, screen, and search, without excess or redundancy that would bloat the surface.
The domain is stock technical analysis, and the tool set covers the essential operations: fetching detailed records, accessing technical indicators, browsing the universe, screening, and searching. There are no obvious missing functions for read-only technical analysis.