Finance MCP

tavily_search

Search the internet for financial information to support research and analysis. Retrieve relevant data for stock, fund, and market investigations using targeted queries.

Instructions

Use search keywords to retrieve relevant information from the internet.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "query": "<query>"
    },
    "name": "tavily_search"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`query`	Yes	search keyword

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedDec 9, 2025

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions retrieving information but lacks details on rate limits, authentication needs, result format, pagination, or error handling. This is inadequate for a search tool that likely has operational constraints.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core functionality ('Use search keywords to retrieve relevant information') with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what kind of information is returned, how results are structured, or any limitations (e.g., number of results, sources). Given the complexity of internet search and lack of structured data, more context is needed.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'query' clearly documented as 'search keyword'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('retrieve') and resource ('relevant information from the internet'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'crawl_url' or 'mock_search' by focusing on search functionality. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'dashscope_search' which appears to be another search tool.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'dashscope_search' or 'mock_search', nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. It only states the basic function without contextual usage information.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server