Retrieve a fund's category, family, description, expense ratio, net assets, sector weights, and top holdings using its ticker symbol.
An ETF or fund: category, fund family, description, expense ratio, net assets, sector weights, and its largest holdings with weights where the reader's vendors carry them.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| symbol | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries a heavier burden for behavioral disclosure. It does offer one useful caveat: largest holdings appear only 'where the reader's vendors carry them', which signals vendor-dependent data availability. But it never explicitly states that the call is read-only, how missing data is handled, or whether vendor-level access affects other fields.
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 sentence with the resource type front-loaded and a compact list of returned fields. It avoids fluff, though the phrase 'where the reader's vendors carry them' is slightly awkward and could be clearer.
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 one-parameter lookup with no output schema, the field list is useful and the vendor caveat adds context. Still, the description omits symbol semantics, missing-data behavior, and any note about when to choose this over the many related profile/quote tools, so it is only minimally complete.
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?
The schema has one required 'symbol' parameter, and schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It names the fund attributes but never explains that 'symbol' should be an ETF/fund ticker or what formats are accepted. The resource type is implicit, but the parameter remains underdocumented.
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 an ETF/fund and enumerates the profile fields (category, expense ratio, net assets, holdings, etc.), so an agent can tell what subject the tool covers. However, it is a noun phrase rather than a verb phrase like 'retrieves' or 'lists', and it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as company_profile or related_funds.
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 gives no guidance on when to use fund_profile versus its siblings, such as company_profile for equities, quote for pricing, or related_funds for comparable funds. There is no mention of exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative selection criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.