Fetch normalized Yahoo Finance data for a ticker symbol, including profile, quote type, price, statistics, and summary modules.
Yahoo Finance ticker info. Returns normalized profile, quote type, price, statistics, and summary modules for a symbol.
| 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, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or whether the operation is read-only. The description assumes a simple fetch but doesn't confirm safety or side effects.
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 concise, consisting of two sentences: one naming the tool and one listing the returned modules. It is front-loaded with the tool name and purpose, with 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?
Given the simple schema and lack of output schema, the description is mostly complete but lacks depth. It doesn't explain what 'normalized' means or hint at the response structure, which would help an agent anticipate the output.
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% with the single parameter symbol adequately described in the schema. The description does not add further meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 ticker info including profile, quote type, price, statistics, and summary modules for a symbol. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling ticker-specific tools (e.g., yahoo_finance_ticker_quote), leaving the differentiation implicit.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or when not to use it. The description simply lists what it returns.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.