get_market_dataMarket data for the user's watchlist, with signals where available.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about watchlist scope and that signals are only present 'where available,' setting expectations about variable availability, but it does not disclose other behavioral traits like rate limits or return format variations.
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 11-word sentence that states the core scope and a key condition. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundant repetition of the title.
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 tool with an output schema and strong annotations, this description is largely sufficient: it identifies the data source (watchlist) and a variable feature (signals). It could be slightly more explicit about what counts as 'market data' (e.g., prices, performance, news), but the ambiguity is minor given the output schema exists.
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 is empty and there are zero parameters, so the description has no semantic burden to carry. Per baseline, this is a 4; the description adds no need for parameter clarification.
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 states the tool returns market data for the user's watchlist and mentions signals as an optional component, which differentiates it from siblings like get_signals_recent or get_market_brief. It lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'retrieve,' but the scope is specific and understandable.
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 this tool versus alternatives such as get_market_brief, get_signals_recent, or get_equity_fundamentals. It only implies the watchlist scope, without any explicit when-to-use or exclusions.
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.
Most tools are distinct, but several pairs overlap in purpose: get_market_data and list_watchlist both return watchlist prices/signals, and the four 'brief' tools have fuzzy boundaries. Descriptions help, but an agent could easily select the wrong one without deeper context.
The dominant verb_noun pattern (get_* for details, list_* for collections) is clear and consistent in style. There are minor deviations like lookup_index_by_brand and run_technical_analysis, and several plural collections use get_, but these remain readable and mostly predictable.
39 tools is well past the 25+ threshold and represents a heavy surface for an agent to navigate. The broad wealth domain explains some of the count, but many granular getters could be consolidated or curated.
The set covers the advertised wealth surface well—portfolio, risk, credit, real assets, markets, geopolitics, watchlist, goals, family, and documents—but it is read-only and lacks obvious navigation endpoints like list_portfolios or detail views for goals/alerts. Agents can retrieve most data, but not all lifecycle operations or entity enumerations are present.