yfin-mcp

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v0.2.9
Disambiguation5/5
All tools target distinct financial data categories: financial statements, historical prices, holder info, options, recommendations, stock actions, general info, and news. No overlap in functionality.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a consistent 'get_' prefix with underscore-separated descriptive nouns (e.g., get_financial_statement, get_historical_stock_prices). The pattern is uniform and predictable.
Tool Count5/5
With 9 tools, the server covers the essential Yahoo Finance data domains without being bloated or sparse. Each tool serves a specific purpose, and the count is well-scoped for the server's purpose.
Completeness4/5
The set covers financial statements, historical prices, holders, options, recommendations, actions, general info, and news. Minor gaps like earnings call transcripts or more granular estimates exist, but the core data surface is nearly complete.
Average 3/5 across 9 of 9 tools scored. Lowest: 2.4/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided. The description mentions data source (Yahoo Finance) but lacks details on rate limits, data freshness, caching, or whether it triggers mutations. It lists categories but no behavioral traits beyond the basic operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is reasonably structured with a list of categories, but it is verbose, repeating 'Include the following information:' and enumerating many items. It could be more concise without losing meaning.
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?
Given 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain parameters like fields and page, and does not describe the return format or pagination behavior. A more complete description would cover these gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%. Of 4 parameters (ticker, fields, page, export_path), only ticker is mentioned in the description. The fields parameter's purpose (filtering results) and format are undefined, and page/export_path are not explained. The description adds no value over the schema.
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 retrieves stock information for a ticker from Yahoo Finance and lists broad categories. It is specific about the resource (stock info) and action (get). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like get_financial_statement or get_holder_info, which also return financial data.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it is for general stock info, but does not specify scenarios where siblings would be more appropriate (e.g., detailed financial statement vs. overview).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states 'get news' without detailing behavior like pagination, rate limits, or whether it fetches all news or recent ones. The page parameter suggests pagination but is not explained.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Brief description with a separate Args section, but it lacks structured information about all parameters. It is concise but not fully organized.
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?
Given that there are three parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain pagination, export functionality, or the nature of the news returned.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Only the ticker parameter is described with an example. The page and export_path parameters are not explained, despite having schema description coverage of 0%. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema for these parameters.
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?
Clearly states 'Get news for a given ticker symbol from yahoo finance', which is a specific verb+resource. Distinguishes from sibling tools like get_financial_statement or get_historical_stock_prices.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any context for usage, such as retrieving recent news or any filtering criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description only states the action without disclosing behavioral traits such as read-only nature, authentication needs, rate limits, or error behavior. This minimal transparency is insufficient for a data retrieval tool.
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?
The description is concise and well-structured with a clear docstring including an Args section. It avoids unnecessary details, though the repetition of parameter names in the list could be condensed.
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?
Given the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description should explain return data structure and pagination behavior (due to page parameter). It does not address these, leaving the agent without key context for interpreting results.
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 description adds meaning for the three required parameters (ticker, expiration_date, option_type) by providing examples and format, but it fails to document the optional parameters (page, export_path) which exist in the schema. Schema coverage is 0%, so the description partially compensates.
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 states 'Fetch the option chain for a given ticker symbol, expiration date, and option type,' which is a specific verb+resource. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like get_option_expiration_dates by mentioning the parameters, but does not explicitly differentiate usage.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_option_expiration_dates). The description lacks context on prerequisites or when-not scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Mentions source (Yahoo Finance) but lacks disclosure on data freshness, rate limits, error handling, or safe mutation behavior (likely read-only but not stated).
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?
Description is clear and includes an 'Args' section for structure. It is front-loaded with purpose, but could be trimmed by removing redundant phrasing (e.g., 'from yahoo finance' in both sentences).
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?
With 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should be comprehensive. Missing documentation for 2 parameters and does not explain return format or behavior. Incomplete for a data lookup tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so description must add meaning. It explains 'ticker', 'recommendation_type', and 'months_back', but 'page' and 'export_path' are completely undocumented. Partial value but significant gap.
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?
Clearly states it gets recommendations/upgrades_downgrades for a ticker from Yahoo Finance. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_stock_actions' which might also provide similar data.
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?
Provides some guidance on the 'months_back' parameter and default, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use compared to other tools. Usage context is implied but not explicitly stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It merely says 'Get' implying a read operation, but does not explicitly state it is read-only, safe, or require any authentication. No mention of behavior like pagination or side effects.
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?
The description is short and to the point, with a clear separation of purpose and args. However, the use of 'Args:' section could be more complete to include all parameters without requiring extra tool configuration. Still, it's efficient.
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?
Despite low complexity, the description is incomplete: no output schema, no explanation of return values, and two undocumented parameters. The sibling tools provide context but the description itself lacks completeness for an agent to use the tool effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%. The description only covers the 'ticker' parameter with a brief explanation and example. The 'page' and 'export_path' parameters are entirely undocumented, leaving the agent without guidance on their purpose or usage.
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?
Clearly states the tool retrieves stock dividends and splits for a given ticker symbol from Yahoo Finance. The verb 'Get' and specific resource 'stock actions' differentiate it from sibling tools like 'get_financial_statement' or 'get_historical_stock_prices'.
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?
Provides an example ticker 'AAPL' but no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., get_stock_info for general info, get_historical_stock_prices for price data). No when-not or prerequisite information.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits like read-only nature, rate limits, or error handling. It only states it gets data from yahoo finance, omitting return format, pagination, or potential failures.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is moderately concise but repeats the financial type list twice (once in the text and again in the Args section), which is redundant. It could be streamlined.
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?
Given 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should explain return values or data format. It does not, leaving the agent uncertain about what the tool returns.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains ticker and financial_type but repeats the same list of types. It does not describe export_path at all, despite it being an optional parameter.
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?
The description clearly states the tool gets a financial statement for a ticker from Yahoo Finance, lists the available statement types, and is distinct from sibling tools like get_stock_info or get_historical_stock_prices.
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?
The description implies use for retrieving financial statements but does not explicitly guide when to choose this tool over siblings. It lacks exclusions or alternative recommendations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral context. It only states the function and parameters, lacking transparency on data source behavior, rate limits, or output characteristics.
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?
The description is front-loaded with the main purpose and structured with an Args section. The list of holder types is detailed but necessary. Slightly verbose but overall reasonable.
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?
The tool has four parameters and no output schema, so the description should explain the output structure or data returned. It also lacks usage context relative to siblings. The description is adequate for basic invocation but not for full understanding.
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 description explains ticker and holder_type with examples and allowed values, compensating for the schema's lack of descriptions. However, page and export_path are not described, leaving their semantics unclear.
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?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves holder information for a stock ticker from Yahoo Finance, listing specific holder types. This distinguishes it from other financial tools like get_stock_info or get_recommendations.
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?
The description lists available holder types, implying usage for those specific queries, but does not provide guidance on when to prefer this tool over siblings or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must cover behavior. It mentions intraday data limitations and parameter defaults, but lacks details on auth, rate limits, side effects, or return structure beyond column names.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Moderately concise with clear Args section, but includes redundant defaults already in schema and references non-existent start/end parameters, making it somewhat bloated.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Returns fields are listed, but two of five parameters are undocumented. No output schema exists, so description should fully explain return values and pagination, which it partially does.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Describes ticker, period, and interval with valid values and constraints, which adds value over the schema (0% coverage). However, it omits page and export_path entirely, and mentions start/end parameters that are not in the schema, causing confusion.
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?
Description clearly states it gets historical stock prices for a ticker symbol from Yahoo Finance, listing the data fields. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_stock_info or get_financial_statement.
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?
Provides guidance on period vs. start/end usage and intraday data constraints, but does not explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives or when not to use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but only states it fetches data. It does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, any rate limits, data freshness, or potential errors (e.g., invalid ticker).
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 extremely concise, with two sentences that front-load the purpose and specify the parameter. No wasted words; every sentence adds value.
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?
Given the tool's low complexity (one simple parameter, no output schema), the description is largely complete. It explains the input and purpose. However, missing behavioral details like whether ticker must be a stock or ETF slightly reduce completeness.
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?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description compensates by explaining the ticker parameter as 'the ticker symbol of the stock to get option expiration dates for, e.g. 'AAPL''. This adds essential meaning beyond the schema's type string.
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?
The description clearly states the action 'Fetch', the resource 'options expiration dates', and the required input 'ticker symbol'. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like get_option_chain which likely retrieves options chains.
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, nor does it mention prerequisites or when not to use it. For example, it doesn't compare with get_option_chain or note if the ticker must be listed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![yahoo-finance-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/fritzprix/yahoo-finance-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/fritzprix/yahoo-finance-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![yahoo-finance-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/fritzprix/yahoo-finance-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/fritzprix/yahoo-finance-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/fritzprix/yahoo-finance-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server