Get the current IGV (iShares Expanded Tech-Software ETF) quote, the SaaSpocalypse market signal referenced in the brief.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "get_igv_quote"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. The verb 'Get' clearly implies a read-only retrieval, and 'current' signals freshness. However, the description does not disclose what exactly the quote contains (price, change, timestamp, etc.), any response format, or potential failure/availability behavior.
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?
One concise sentence that names the resource and provides context in a compact way. Every phrase earns its place; the ETF name and the 'SaaSpocalypse' signal reference add meaningful context without bloat.
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 zero-parameter quote-lookup tool with no output schema, the description is mostly complete: it identifies the resourcecars the purpose and the missing return details are not critical for selecting and invoking the tool. It could be more complete by describing the quote payload or intended use case-based next steps.
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 tool has zero parameters stub and the schema already fully covers this by defining an empty object. The description adds contextual meaning about what 'IGV' is and why it matters, but does not need to document parameters because there are none.
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 states a specific verb ('Get'), a concrete resource ('IGV ETF quote'), and adds a distinctive identifier ('SaaSpocalypse market signal referenced in the brief'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools such as get_top_headlines or get_latest_update.
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 clear context for when to use it: when the current IGV quote / SaaSpocalypse market signal is needed. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, but the tie to the brief and the specific ETF resource make the intended usage fairly evident.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.