Retrieve trailing twelve-month (TTM) financial ratios by stock symbol to assess profitability, liquidity, and efficiency.
Gain access to trailing twelve-month (TTM) financial ratios with the TTM Ratios API. This API provides key performance metrics over the past year, including profitability, liquidity, and efficiency ratios.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| symbol | Yes | Stock symbol |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.9.0Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falseDoes the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about the categories of ratios returned, but does not describe authentication needs, rate limits, response format, or result cardinality.
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 short and front-loads the TTM focus, with the second sentence adding useful metric categories. The phrase 'with the TTM Ratios API' is slightly redundant, but overall it is efficient and readable.
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?
For a simple one-parameter read tool with safety annotations, the description covers the general purpose and metric categories. However, because there is no output schema, it could be more complete by specifying what the returned ratio fields look like or what format to expect.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, and the only parameter is a required 'symbol' already described as 'Stock symbol'. The description does not add any additional meaning, format examples, or constraints 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.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states that the tool retrieves trailing twelve-month financial ratios, with meaningful examples of metric categories such as profitability, liquidity, and efficiency. It is specific about the resource and time window, but it does not distinguish this tool from closely related siblings like getRatios, getKeyMetricsTTM, or getRatiosTTMBulk.
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 TTM scope implies when this tool is appropriate, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use it instead of annual ratios or bulk TTM ratio tools. It gives enough context to infer general usage, but leaves alternatives and exclusions unstated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.