Fetch Yahoo Finance chart metadata for a stock symbol to get fields like currency and exchange name from the meta response.
Yahoo Finance history metadata. Returns the chart metadata Yahoo Finance holds for a symbol such as AAPL, in meta, for example currency and exchangeName. 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 full burden, and it does disclose that the result is a `meta` object with fields like `currency` and `exchangeName`. However, it says nothing about error behavior for invalid symbols, freshness of the metadata, or whether the call is read-only (inferred but unstated). Transparency is partial for a simple read tool.
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?
Front-loaded with the outcome ('Returns the chart metadata...'), followed by a concrete example of fields and a note on inputs. Three short sentences, mostly earning their place, though the closing 'symbol is the only input' is mild redundancy.
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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it identifies the returned object (`meta`) and representative fields. It stops short of enumerating the full metadata set or error cases, which keeps it from a 5.
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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter already documents 'Yahoo Finance symbol such as AAPL.' The description repeats this ('a `symbol` such as `AAPL`', 'The symbol is the only input'), adding no format or edge-case details beyond the schema, so 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 concrete verb+resource: it returns the chart metadata Yahoo Finance holds for a symbol, and names the container (`meta`) with example fields (`currency`, `exchangeName`). It implicitly distinguishes itself from yahoo_finance_ticker_history by being metadata rather than the history series, but never explicitly contrasts the two.
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?
There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of the sibling yahoo_finance_ticker_history or yahoo_finance_ticker_info_chart, despite these being obvious alternatives. The only usage detail is that 'The symbol is the only input,' which is a constraint, not guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.