Financial Data MCP Server

Compare Stocks Tool

compare_stocks_tool

Compare price, change%, P/E, ROE, and debt-to-equity across 2–3 tickers to reveal relative valuation and financial health.

Instructions

Compare key metrics (price, change%, P/E, ROE, debt-to-equity) across 2-3 tickers.

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": {
      "tickers": "<tickers>"
    },
    "name": "compare_stocks_tool"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`tickers`	Yes	List of 2-3 exact ticker symbols, e.g. ["AAPL", "MSFT"].

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 7, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It communicates the essential behavior—comparing specified metrics across 2-3 tickers—but does not discuss data freshness, read-only status, error handling, or ordering. For a non-destructive comparison tool, the core behavior is reasonably clear.

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 sentence with no filler. The action, resource, scope, and specific metrics are all front-loaded in a compact, readable way.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a tool with one well-described parameter and an output schema, the description is mostly complete: it states purpose, scope, and exact metrics. It lacks explicit sibling routing and deeper behavioral context, but the multi-ticker framing is sufficient to differentiate it from most sibling tools.

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 input schema already fully describes the 'tickers' parameter, including the 2-3 constraint, symbol format, and an example. With 100% schema coverage, the description adds little beyond reinforcement, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 uses a clear verb ('Compare') and a specific resource ('key metrics'), listing exact metrics and a 2-3 ticker scope. It distinguishes itself from sibling single-ticker tools by emphasizing multi-ticker comparison, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is implied by the multi-ticker framing: an agent can infer this tool is for comparing several tickers rather than fetching a single quote or overview. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer it over siblings like get_financial_ratios_tool or get_stock_quote_tool.

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

Deploy Server