Find equities by company name or ticker across 34 global exchanges, with an optional exchange filter to narrow results.
Search for equities by company name or ticker across 34 supported global exchanges.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | Company name or ticker fragment (at least 2 characters, e.g. 'Apple' or 'AAPL'). | |
| exchange | No | Optional exchange code filter (e.g., NASDAQ, NYSE, LSE, BSE, XETRA). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only search by nature but does not disclose authentication needs, rate limits, result caps, pagination behavior, or what the response contains.
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 front-loaded sentence with zero waste, stating the verb, resource, query modes, and scope efficiently.
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 with full schema coverage, the description is adequate but leaves gaps: it does not indicate what the results contain or whether there are limits on returned matches. With no output schema, some return-value context would be helpful.
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 both parameters are already documented with examples and a minimum length. The description reinforces that search works by company name or ticker and mentions exchange coverage, but adds no syntax or constraints beyond what the schema provides.
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?
States a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('equities'), along with the query modes ('company name or ticker') and scope ('34 supported global exchanges'). The sibling tool get_forecast is clearly unrelated, so there is no ambiguity about what this tool does.
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 implies usage for finding equities by name or ticker and mentions the exchange filter context, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. With only an unrelated sibling, the implied usage is sufficient but not strong guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.