Portfolio Analytics MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

search_symbol

Read-only

Find ticker candidates for a company/ETF name, partial ticker, or ISIN. Returns symbols with exchange details to help identify the correct listing when multiple exchanges are available.

Instructions

Find ticker candidates for a company/ETF name, partial ticker or ISIN.

The same security often trades on several exchanges (e.g. ASML on NASDAQ
and Euronext Amsterdam), so when more than one candidate is plausible,
ASK THE USER which listing/exchange/currency they hold. For European ETFs
by ISIN, resolve_instrument gives exchange-accurate tickers.

Args:
    query: Name, ticker fragment or ISIN.
    max_results: Maximum candidates (1-25).

Returns:
    `candidates` (symbol, name, type, exchange, sector) and a `note`.

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": "search_symbol"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`query`	Yes
`max_results`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 27, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already establish readOnly/openWorld, so the description focuses on real added context: ambiguity across exchanges, the need to confirm with the user, and the shape of the return (`candidates` fields plus a `note`). It stops short of explaining ranking/ordering of candidates or what the `note` may contain.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Front-loads the core action and the disambiguation rule before the Args/Returns block, with no filler sentences. The Args block mildly duplicates schema titles, but with 0% schema coverage that repetition is functional rather than wasteful.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a two-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description covers input forms, result limits, return fields, ambiguity handling, and the alternative tool for one important edge case. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the parameters, and it does: `query` accepts a name, ticker fragment, or ISIN, and `max_results` is bounded 1–25 (a constraint absent from the schema). It does not clarify matching semantics (case sensitivity, prefix vs substring, exact-ticker prioritization).

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

Purpose5/5

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

States a specific verb (find) and resource (ticker candidates) plus the three accepted input forms: company/ETF name, partial ticker, or ISIN. It also implicitly separates itself from lookup siblings like get_symbol_info by framing the output as 'candidates' requiring disambiguation.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Gives an explicit conditional policy: when more than one candidate is plausible, ask the user which listing/exchange/currency they hold. It also routes a specific case (European ETFs by ISIN) to the sibling resolve_instrument, so the agent knows both when to use this tool and when not to.

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