Get analyst coverage for a symbol: consensus rating, monthly ratings breakdown, price targets, recent rating changes, and short interest.
Analyst coverage for one symbol: the consensus recommendation, the
strong-buy to strong-sell counts by month, price targets (low, mean,
median, high), the most recent changes rating changes by firm (max 100),
and short interest where carried.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| symbol | Yes | ||
| changes | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It adds useful operational detail such as 'max 100' for rating changes and the conditional 'where carried' for short interest. However, it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, nor does it mention data freshness, access requirements, or potential error cases.
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 compact sentence that front-loads the domain and then enumerates the relevant data fields with no filler. Every clause adds information, and the backticked `changes` reference cleanly ties the parameter to its behavioral meaning.
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 present, the description covers the main return fields well: consensus recommendation, monthly counts, price target buckets, rating changes, and short interest. It leaves minor operational details to inference, such as the response shape and the default changes count, but is largely complete for an agent deciding whether to invoke this tool.
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. It does add real meaning to the `changes` parameter by explaining it as the number of most-recent firm rating changes returned, capped at 100. It also indicates that `symbol` refers to a single symbol. However, it does not mention the default value of 20 or provide any format/constraint guidance for symbol beyond 'one symbol'.
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 'analyst coverage for one symbol' and enumerates the exact data returned: consensus recommendation, monthly recommendation counts, price targets, rating changes, and short interest. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like quote, key_stats, or earnings_history. It lacks an explicit verb like 'returns' or 'lists', but the structure is unambiguous.
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 a single-symbol analyst sentiment/price-target lookup, which gives some selection guidance. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool over alternatives like key_stats, ownership, or earnings_context, nor does it mention exclusions, prerequisites, or context where this tool would not be appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.