Fetch industry details by key: overview, sector linkage, top companies, growth companies, and research reports from Yahoo Finance.
Yahoo Finance industry detail. Returns overview, sector linkage, top companies, growth companies, and research reports for an industry key.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| key | Yes | Industry key such as semiconductors |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It describes the output content but fails to indicate that this is a read-only operation, lacks any mention of rate limits, authentication, or potential side effects. It does not contradict annotations but leaves significant gaps.
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 sentence that front-loads the tool purpose ('Yahoo Finance industry detail') and then lists what it returns. No unnecessary words.
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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides a list of returned data categories (overview, sector linkage, top companies, growth companies, research reports), which gives the agent a good idea of what to expect. However, it does not mention whether the output is paginated, if keys are case-sensitive, or where to find valid industry keys.
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 input schema already describes the 'key' parameter with a good example ('semiconductors'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond stating it is 'for an industry key'. Since schema coverage is high (100%), the description adds no extra value.
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 returns industry detail including overview, sector linkage, top companies, etc. It uses a specific verb 'Returns' and identifies the resource. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like yahoo_finance_industries or sector tools, though the singular form implies it's for a single industry.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternative tools such as yahoo_finance_industries for listing industries or yahoo_finance_sector for sector data. The description does not mention prerequisites or correct contexts for use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.