Porównanie kilku spółek obok siebie.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| metrics | No | Optional subset. Default includes lastClose, price change, volatility, sentiment, alerts, impliedUpsidePct, valuation availability, sector and membership. With FREE/PRO enabled, FREE gets null impliedUpsidePct even when requested. Unknown metrics ignored. | |
| symbols | Yes | 2-10 tickers. Server canonicalizes. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / metrics / descriptionPrevious value: -"Optional subset. Default: ['lastClose','changePct30d','realizedVolPctAnnualized','sentimentAvg30d','alertCount30d','impliedUpsidePct','sanityFiltered','impliedPriceUnavailableReason','sector','inPortfolio','inWatchlist']. Unknown metrics ignored."New value: +"Optional subset. Default includes lastClose, price change, volatility, sentiment, alerts, impliedUpsidePct, valuation availability, sector and membership. With FREE/PRO enabled, FREE gets null impliedUpsidePct even when requested. Unknown metrics ignored."Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already communicates that this is a read-only operation, and the description adds no additional behavioral context such as output shape, side effects, rate limits, or plan restrictions. It does not contradict the annotation, but it contributes nothing beyond it.
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, front-loaded phrase with no filler or repetition. It is economical, though its brevity leaves some contextual gaps.
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?
With complete parameter schema and a read-only annotation, the tool is minimally invokable, but the description alone does not provide usage context, alternatives, or output expectations. It is adequate but not complete.
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 coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents both symbols and metrics, including defaults and plan-based behavior. The description's mention of 'companies' only loosely maps to the 'symbols' parameter and adds no technical meaning 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?
The Polish description 'Porównanie kilku spółek obok siebie' clearly conveys side-by-side comparison of multiple companies, naming the resource and the action. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like compare_portfolio_risk_reward or get_company_analysis.
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?
No guidance is given about when to choose this tool over its alternatives, nor are any exclusions or prerequisites stated. The description only says what the tool does, not when it should be used.
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.