Search OpenFIGI by company or instrument name to find financial instruments. Use it to look up identifiers for stocks, bonds, and other securities from a single query.
Search OpenFIGI for financial instruments by name.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | Search query (company or instrument name). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.11Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety and side-effect profile are covered. The description adds only that the backend is OpenFIGI (external, network-dependent), which is already implied by openWorldHint. It says nothing about result caps, ranking, or rate limits on the external service.
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?
One short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and the resource, with zero filler. It is arguably too terse rather than wasteful, but nothing in it needs cutting.
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 one-parameter read-only search with no output schema, the description covers only the minimum. It omits return shape (list of FIGIs/securities), whether results are paginated or capped, and how ambiguity is resolved — details an agent would want before calling.
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 single 'query' parameter is documented in the schema as a company or instrument name. The description's 'by name' mildly reinforces this but adds no syntax, formatting, or fuzzy-matching details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.
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?
Specific verb+resource: 'Search OpenFIGI for financial instruments by name' tells an agent exactly what is queried and by what key. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling openfigi_mapping, which is the likely confusable alternative (identifier-to-FIGI mapping vs. name search).
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 on when to use this versus openfigi_mapping, no note that only names/queries are accepted, and no statement about what to do if no match is found. The agent must infer the routing decision entirely.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.