Fetch Yahoo Finance earnings and earningsTrend modules for a stock symbol such as AAPL, returning structured data for analysis.
Yahoo Finance earnings. Returns the Yahoo Finance earnings modules for a symbol such as AAPL, including earnings and earningsTrend, under modules. 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the response shape (modules under `modules`, symbol echoed back), which the agent would otherwise not know since there is no output schema. It says nothing about data freshness, rate limits, or failure behavior for an invalid symbol, leaving meaningful 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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the tool's purpose before details. Slightly redundant in re-stating that symbol is the only input after already saying the response echoes it, but overall tight and readable.
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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, input, and the returned module names reasonably well. It stops short of explaining what the `earnings`/`earningsTrend` modules contain, which would help without an output schema, but it is adequate.
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% and there is only one parameter, so the schema already documents `symbol` including the AAPL example. The description adds no format or lookup guidance beyond restating that symbol is the sole input, 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?
States a specific verb ("Returns") and resource ("Yahoo Finance earnings modules") and even names the returned module keys (`earnings`, `earningsTrend`). However, it does not differentiate itself from the many close siblings such as `yahoo_finance_ticker_earnings_dates`, `yahoo_finance_ticker_analysts`, or `yahoo_finance_ticker_financials`, so an agent must guess which earnings-adjacent tool fits.
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 statement of when to use this versus alternatives is provided. The only usage-ish note is "the symbol is the only input," which is input mechanics, not guidance about context or sibling selection among the numerous yahoo_finance_ticker_* tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.