The Stock Peers Bulk API allows you to quickly retrieve a comprehensive list of peer companies for all stocks in the database. By accessing this data, you can easily compare a stock’s performance with its closest competitors or similar companies within the same industry or sector.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only promises 'quickly retrieve' and 'comprehensive list'. It does not disclose that fetching all stocks may return a massive payload, nor does it mention rate limits, response structure, or how 'peers' are defined. This leaves significant behavioral uncertainty for a bulk endpoint.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main action and resource. The second sentence elaborates the use case without excessive fluff. Minor filler like 'allows you to' and 'easily' prevent a perfect score.
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 bulk endpoint with no output schema and no annotations, the description is thin. It fails to address expected response size, pagination, or system load, and does not mention the distinction from single-stock peers retrieval. This leaves the agent without key operational context.
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 tool has zero parameters, and the input schema reflects this with 100% coverage. The description adds context about the returned data, but since there are no parameters to explain, the baseline of 4 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?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves a comprehensive list of peer companies for all stocks in the database, using an active verb and specific resource. It distinguishes itself from the sibling getStockPeers by emphasizing 'bulk' and 'all stocks', and provides the use case of performance comparison.
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 implies usage for bulk peer comparison but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over getStockPeers or other alternatives. It mentions 'for all stocks' and 'quickly', but lacks exclusions or prerequisites, leaving the intended context to be inferred.
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.