Fetch Yahoo Finance calendar events for a stock symbol like AAPL through Crawlora MCP. Return event data in JSON for financial research and scheduling.
Yahoo Finance calendar. Returns the calendar events Yahoo Finance holds for a symbol such as AAPL, under modules.calendarEvents. The response echoes the symbol, and the symbol is the only input.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| symbol | Yes | Yahoo Finance symbol such as AAPL |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It discloses read behavior via 'Returns' and names the output location under modules.calendarEvents, but it omits auth needs, rate limits, pagination, and any explicit read-only confirmation.
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 three short sentences and front-loads the resource and verb. The final sentence mildly repeats the schema's single-input fact, but overall it is tight and free of filler.
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 one required parameter and no output schema, the description supplies the output location modules.calendarEvents and confirms the input surface. It could say more about what event types appear, but for a low-complexity retrieval tool it is sufficient to call correctly.
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% for the single symbol parameter, and the schema already describes it as a Yahoo Finance symbol such as AAPL. The description adds only that symbol is the sole input and that the response echoes it, which is minimal beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 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 states a specific verb and resource: it returns Yahoo Finance calendar events for a symbol such as AAPL. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like yahoo_finance_ticker_earnings_dates or yahoo_finance_calendars, but the calendar-event scope is clear enough for selection.
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 gives no when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives. It only states what is returned, so an agent must infer that this tool is for calendar events rather than earnings dates, dividends, or other ticker data.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.