finnhub_price_targetAnalyst price targets for a symbol — high / low / median / mean target. Note: this is a premium-tier Finnhub endpoint (may return 403 on the free plan). Finnhub REST: GET /stock/price-target.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| symbol | Yes | Stock ticker symbol, e.g. 'AAPL' (required). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
readOnlyHint=true already covers the safety profile, so the bar is lower; the description adds genuinely useful context by disclosing the premium-tier restriction and likely 403 response, plus the underlying REST route. It stops short of return format or rate-limit detail, but the error behavior disclosure is the key operational fact here.
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?
Two sentences, result fields front-loaded, caveat and endpoint appended with zero filler. Every clause earns its place.
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?
No output schema exists, yet the description names the returned metrics, so the agent knows what to expect. Combined with the 403 caveat and the single fully-described parameter, nothing needed to call this tool correctly is missing.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100% with a single well-documented 'symbol' parameter, so the schema carries the burden. The description adds nothing param-specific beyond implying the symbol is a ticker and 100% baseline 3 applies.
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?
States the exact resource (analyst price targets for a symbol) and enumerates the returned metrics (high/low/median/mean target), which distinguishes it from the nearest sibling finnhub_recommendation_trends and from quote/profile tools. No ambiguity about what an agent gets back.
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?
Provides a real usage caveat — the premium-tier 403 on the free plan — which helps an agent interpret failures. However, it never states when this tool is preferable to alternatives (e.g. recommendation trends) or what prerequisites apply, so usage selection remains implied.
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.