List supported Yahoo Finance calendar types—earnings, IPO, economic events, and splits—to discover valid categories for finance data queries.
Yahoo Finance calendar types. Lists the Yahoo Finance calendar types available through the API: earnings, ipo, economic-events and splits. The list is static. Takes no parameters.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two meaningful traits: the list is static (stable, safe to cache, no side effects) and it takes no parameters. That is solid behavioral context for a reference tool, though it never explicitly states read-only/side-effect-free in those terms.
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?
Three short sentences with zero waste: identity, enumerated values, and the no-parameter/static constraint. The most decision-relevant facts (what it is, what it returns) are front-loaded.
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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description usefully compensates by enumerating the returned values. The only gap is that it does not indicate the downstream use of these types, but nothing needed to invoke the 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?
The tool has zero parameters, which sets a baseline of 4. The description reinforces this with 'Takes no parameters', so there is no ambiguity about invocation. There is nothing further to document.
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 states a specific verb (lists) and resource (Yahoo Finance calendar types) and enumerates the exact values returned: earnings, ipo, economic-events, splits. An agent immediately understands this is a static enumerator. It stops short of explicitly distinguishing itself from the closely-named sibling yahoo_finance_calendar_results, which is the natural consumer of these types.
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 — a no-parameter reference list — but the description never says when to reach for this tool versus the many sibling calendar tools (yahoo_finance_calendar_results, yahoo_finance_ticker_calendar). No explicit alternatives or conditions are given, leaving the agent to infer that this is a discovery step.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.