Fetch current Yahoo Finance share-count statistics for a stock symbol, returning key share fields as clean JSON.
Yahoo Finance share counts. Returns current share-count fields from Yahoo key statistics.
| 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 present, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It indicates a read operation ('Returns current share-count fields'), but omits details about data freshness, response structure, pagination, or any side effects. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotations.
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 extremely concise, using two short sentences to convey the tool's purpose and resource. It is front-loaded with the key information (Yahoo Finance share counts) with no extraneous content.
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 complexity of having many sibling tools and no output schema, the description is minimal. It covers the basic purpose but lacks detail on the returned data fields, assumptions, or prerequisites. A more complete description would include what constitutes 'share-count fields' or mention if the symbol must be valid.
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 a single 'symbol' parameter described as 'Yahoo Finance symbol such as AAPL'. The description adds no further meaning beyond the schema, 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 it returns current share-count fields from Yahoo key statistics for a given symbol. It distinguishes itself from many related yahoo_finance_ticker_* siblings by specifying 'share counts', making its purpose unambiguous.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. Usage is implied by the description (when you need share counts), but no context or exclusions are provided, resulting in an average score.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.