MCP Yahoo Finance

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but doesn't describe traits like data freshness, rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or what 'analyst recommendations' entail (e.g., ratings, targets). This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand operational behavior.

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 a single, clear sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently conveys the essential information without unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 complexity of financial data tools and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'analyst recommendations' include (e.g., buy/sell ratings, price targets), potential limitations, or how results are structured, leaving the agent with insufficient context for effective use.

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%, with the parameter 'symbol' fully documented in the schema as 'Stock symbol in Yahoo Finance format.' The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as examples or constraints, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without compensating value.

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 action ('Get') and resource ('analyst recommendations for a given symbol'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_news' or 'get_current_stock_price', which also retrieve financial data for symbols, so it's not fully specific to sibling context.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't specify if this is for investment decisions, research, or how it differs from other data-fetching siblings like 'get_news' or 'get_historical_stock_prices'. The description lacks context on prerequisites or exclusions.

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