Everything known about one instrument (crypto token or equity): static info, latest metrics (price, 30d price/fundamental change, fees, revenue), divergence history, and cross-asset links.
Args:
symbol: Ticker symbol, e.g. RENDER, AKT, NVDA. Case-insensitive.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| symbol | Yes |
| 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses what data is returned but does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether it may cause side effects, whether data is real-time or cached, or any other behavioral context. 'Get' implies read-only, but the description does not explicitly confirm it or mention potential latency or API access 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?
The description is efficiently structured: a front-loaded one-sentence overview of the tool's purpose and contents, followed by a terse, clean Args section. Every sentence contributes substantive information, with no redundancy or fluff.
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 tool with an output schema, the description provides sufficient detail to invoke it correctly, including symbol format and scope. It lacks explicit sibling differentiation—for example, it does not say 'for metrics only, use get_asset_metrics'—but the 'Everything known' phrasing partially addresses this. No missing critical information blocks a call.
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 input schema merely names the parameter 'symbol' with 0% description coverage. The description compensates by explaining it is a 'Ticker symbol', providing concrete examples (RENDER, AKT, NVDA), specifying case-insensitivity, and clarifying the instrument types (crypto token or equity). This fully covers the single parameter's meaning.
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 defines the tool's scope: 'Everything known about one instrument (crypto token or equity)' followed by a concrete list of data categories (static info, latest metrics, divergence history, cross-asset links). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_asset_metrics, which likely returns only metrics, and search_assets, which finds assets rather than returning a full profile for one symbol.
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 this tool should be used when a comprehensive single-asset profile is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over alternatives such as get_asset_metrics or search_assets. No exclusions or 'use X instead' guidance is provided, leaving the agent to infer usage from the 'Everything known' phrasing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.