Skip to main content
Glama
yantrix-ai

@praveen030686/data-apis-mcp

Get Company Profile

finance_stock_profile
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve detailed company profiles for stocks, including sector, industry, employee count, market capitalization, P/E ratio, and business descriptions to support investment research and analysis.

Instructions

Get company profile including sector, industry, employees, market cap, P/E ratio, and business description. Costs $0.03 USDC per request via x402 on Base.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
symbolYesStock ticker (e.g., AAPL, MSFT, GOOGL)

Implementation Reference

  • The tool "finance_stock_profile" is registered and its logic implemented directly within the call to `server.registerTool`. It fetches stock profile data from the `FINANCE_API` endpoint.
    server.registerTool(
      "finance_stock_profile",
      {
        title: "Get Company Profile",
        description: `Get company profile including sector, industry, employees, market cap, P/E ratio, and business description.
    Costs $0.03 USDC per request via x402 on Base.`,
        inputSchema: {
          symbol: z.string().min(1).max(10).describe("Stock ticker (e.g., AAPL, MSFT, GOOGL)"),
        },
        annotations: { readOnlyHint: true, destructiveHint: false, idempotentHint: true, openWorldHint: true },
      },
      async ({ symbol }) => {
        const data = await apiFetch(`${FINANCE_API}/api/v1/stocks/profile/${symbol.toUpperCase()}`);
        return { content: [{ type: "text", text: JSON.stringify(data, null, 2) }] };
      }
    );
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: the specific cost ($0.03 USDC per request) and payment mechanism (via x402 on Base). This financial transparency is crucial for usage decisions and isn't covered by annotations. No contradiction with annotations exists.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise with two sentences: one listing the data returned and one stating the cost. Every word earns its place with no redundancy. The structure is front-loaded with the core functionality followed by important operational details. No wasted words or unnecessary elaboration.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool has rich annotations (read-only, open-world, idempotent, non-destructive) and a simple single-parameter schema with 100% coverage, the description provides good contextual completeness. It specifies what data is returned and includes critical cost information. The main gap is lack of output format details (no output schema), but for a profile retrieval tool with good annotations, this is acceptable.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% with the parameter 'symbol' fully documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides (e.g., no additional constraints or examples). With complete schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't enhance parameter understanding.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool retrieves a company profile with specific data fields (sector, industry, employees, market cap, P/E ratio, business description). It distinguishes from sibling tools like finance_stock_price (price only) and finance_stock_financials (financial statements), though it doesn't explicitly name these alternatives. The purpose is specific but could be more explicit about differentiation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage for obtaining comprehensive company data, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like finance_stock_financials or finance_stock_news. The cost information suggests when cost considerations matter, but doesn't define specific use cases or exclusions. Usage is implied rather than explicitly stated.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/yantrix-ai/x402-apis-mcp-server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server