get_priceCurrent price for a stock ticker (e.g. AAPL), crypto (BTC, ETH), gold (GOLD), or index (SPX, NDX). Equities delayed ~15 min; crypto real-time. Free forever for crypto.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| symbol | Yes | Ticker: AAPL, TSLA, BTC, ETH, GOLD, SPX, NDX, DJI |
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 cover read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent behavior. The description adds real behavioral context not present in annotations: equities are delayed ~15 minutes, crypto is real-time, and crypto access is free forever. This is meaningful operational information for an agent deciding whether this tool's data is suitable for a task.
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 just three short sentences, each carrying useful information: what the tool returns, which asset classes are supported, and a key limitation vís a-í-vis latency and pricing. The most important scoping information is front-loaded, and there is no repetition of the tool name or of schema content.
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 price-lookup tool with strong annotations and full schema coverage, the description supplies enough context to call it correctly: supported symbols, asset types, latency, and cost/access note. It does not describe the response format, but with no output schema that is a modest gap, not impairing the core invocation decision.
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 already documents the symbol parameter 100% with a list of valid example tickers and required status. The description adds the asset-class framing and latency qualifiers, but it does not add new parameter syntax or formatting details. With full schema coverage, the baseline 3 is appropriate because the description reinforces rather than augments the schema.
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 the tool's scope clearly: current prices for stocks, crypto, gold, and indices, with concrete examples for each. This makes the tool easy to identify, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools. At the same time, the asset-class list itself differentiates it from get_fx_rates and get_perp_prices.
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 the right use case by listing supported asset classes, so an agent can infer it should use this tool for AAPL, BTC, GOLD, or SPX. It provides no explicit 'use get_fx_rates for FX' or 'use get_perp_prices for perps' guidance, though the sibling names make the alternatives visible. This is clear context but with no exclusion or rerouting, so it gets a 3.
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.
Each tool addresses a distinct data domain: FX rates, perpetual futures, portfolio summary, open positions, prediction markets, and general prices. There is minor potential overlap between get_price and get_perp_prices for crypto assets, but the distinction between spot/current price and perpetual futures is clear enough.
All tool names follow a consistent get_<resource> pattern in snake_case. Some resources are plural and some singular, but that is natural given the noun being fetched, so the naming is predictable and uniform.
Six tools is a well-scoped set for a market data and portfolio monitoring server. Each tool provides a distinct, useful capability without unnecessary bloat or an overly thin surface.
The server exposes only getter operations: no order placement, cancellation, position closing, or historical account activity. Given the broker/paper trading context implied by the server name and portfolio tools, the lack of any trading lifecycle actions is a significant gap.