Find ETFs matching a keyword or theme. Enter a term like 'AI' or 'clean energy' to get matching tickers and fund names.
Search for ETFs by keyword or theme (e.g. 'AI', 'clean energy', 'small cap value'). Returns matching tickers and fund names.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max results to return (default 10, max 20) | |
| query | Yes | Search term (e.g. 'technology ETF', 'dividend growth') |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.3.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. 'Search' inherently signals a read-only operation, and the description discloses what the caller can expect in return: matching tickers and fund names. It does not detail sort order or matching semantics, but those are secondary for this tool.
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?
Two sentences with no filler. The primary action and scope are front-loaded, examples are compactly parenthesized, and the return output is stated directly. Every sentence earns its place.
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 two-parameter search tool, the description is sufficiently complete: it covers the input intent, representative queries, and the output content. The absence of an output schema is mitigated by the explicit statement that matching tickers and fund names are returned.
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%, so the schema already documents both `query` and `limit` including defaults and max. The description adds helpful examples like 'AI' and 'clean energy', but it does not materially expand beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 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 a specific verb and resource: 'Search for ETFs by keyword or theme'. It also gives concrete examples and explicitly states the return value ('matching tickers and fund names'), which distinguishes it from siblings that retrieve quotes, summaries, or holdings.
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 clear context for when to use the tool: when searching for ETFs by keyword or theme. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state exclusions, but the context is unambiguous and the sibling tool names help reinforce the boundary.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.