Finance Tools MCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the source (Yahoo) and general use case (latest news, deep research), but fails to disclose critical behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or the format/scope of returned news (e.g., number of articles, time range). This leaves significant gaps for an AI agent to understand 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.

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

The description is concise with two sentences that directly state the tool's function and use case, with no redundant information. It is front-loaded by starting with the core purpose. However, it could be slightly more structured by separating functional details from usage advice for better clarity.

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 tool's complexity (news retrieval with potential variability in output) and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the return values include (e.g., headlines, dates, links), how results are formatted, or any limitations (e.g., news recency, source reliability). This inadequately supports an AI agent in invoking the tool correctly.

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?

The input schema has one parameter 'ticker' with 0% schema description coverage, meaning the schema provides no details about this parameter. The description adds some meaning by specifying it's for 'a ticker' in the context of Yahoo financial news, but does not elaborate on format (e.g., stock symbol conventions), validation, or examples. This partially compensates for the low coverage but remains minimal.

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's purpose: 'getting yahoo financial news of a ticker' and 'getting latest news', which specifies the verb (get), resource (Yahoo financial news), and scope (for a ticker). However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like 'cnbc_news_feed' or 'social_media_feed', which might also provide news but from different sources or with different focuses.

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?

The description implies usage context by stating it's 'useful for getting latest news, especially for doing deep research', suggesting it's best for recent news and in-depth analysis. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'cnbc_news_feed' or 'social_media_feed', nor does it specify any exclusions or prerequisites.

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