Fetch key financial ratios, profile, sector, pros/cons, and 3/5/10-year growth for Indian NSE/BSE companies to assess their fundamentals.
Key ratios (market cap, P/E, book value, ROCE, ROE, 52-week range…), about, sector/industry, pros/cons and 10/5/3-year compounded growth. view: auto | consolidated | standalone.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| view | No | auto | |
| symbol | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about the kinds of data returned and the available view modes, but does not disclose data freshness, rate limits, or other behavioral constraints beyond the annotations.
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 compact and front-loads the main content categories without filler. It is a sentence fragment rather than a complete statement, but every element contributes useful information.
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?
With no output schema and no parameter descriptions in the schema, the description should do more to explain return structure and view-mode behavior. It adequately lists the content categories an agent can expect, but leaves gaps around output shape, view semantics, and sibling differentiation.
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 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter documentation. It usefully lists the allowed values for 'view' (auto | consolidated | standalone), but it does not explain what those modes mean or clarify the required 'symbol' parameter beyond its name.
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 identifies the resource as a company overview and enumerates the major data domains it covers: ratios, about, sector/industry, pros/cons, and compounded growth. However, it has no explicit verb and does not distinguish this tool from overlapping siblings such as company_snapshot or financial_statement.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like company_snapshot or financial_statement. The only usage-like detail is the 'view' parameter options, which belongs to parameter semantics rather than tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.