finnhub_symbol_searchSearch for stock symbols by name or ticker — returns best-matching symbols with descriptions and types. Finnhub REST: GET /search.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | Yes | Free-text query — a company name or ticker, e.g. 'apple' (required). | |
| exchange | No | Restrict results to an exchange, e.g. 'US'. |
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 tells the agent this is a safe read, and the description usefully adds the return shape (symbols with descriptions and types) plus the upstream endpoint. It does not disclose result limits, ranking behavior, or pagination, so it adds context without being rich.
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 compact clauses with the core purpose front-loaded and zero filler; the trailing 'Finnhub REST: GET /search.' is largely redundant for an agent invoking an MCP tool but costs almost nothing.
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 two-parameter, read-only lookup with no output schema, the description covers purpose, inputs, and the shape of results, which is enough to call it correctly. Missing are result-count/limit behavior and differentiation from the near-identical finnhub_stock_symbols sibling.
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 'q' documented as free-text name or ticker and 'exchange' as an exchange restriction, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no syntax, format, or query-construction detail beyond the schema.
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?
Specific verb (search) plus resource (stock symbols) and a scope note (by name or ticker), with a stated return shape ('best-matching symbols with descriptions and types'). It falls short of 5 because it never distinguishes itself from the sibling finnhub_stock_symbols, which an agent could easily confuse with this tool.
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?
Usage is implied by 'search for stock symbols by name or ticker', so an agent can infer the lookup scenario. There is no explicit when-to-use, no exclusion, and no routing to the obvious alternative finnhub_stock_symbols, leaving the choice between the two ambiguous.
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.