［台美股題材與高股息］美股延遲報價（約 15 分鐘）：AI 晶片、雲端、伺服器、液冷、光通訊、高股息個股與 SPY、QQQ、SCHD、JEPI 等 ETF。
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": "stocks__get_us_quotes"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| symbols | No | 美股代號，例：["NVDA","SCHD"]；不填回傳本站追蹤清單 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the 15-minute delay, which is useful, but omits other relevant traits such as read-only nature, authentication requirements, or how the tracking-list default works.
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?
It is a single sentence but padded with a long list of thematic examples and a bracketed category tag. The core purpose is not front-loaded, reducing conciseness.
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 quote tool with full schema coverage, the description covers the delay and the universe but fails to differentiate from sibling tools or state usage context. An agent might need more to select correctly.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100% for the single 'symbols' parameter, and the description adds no syntax, format, or default behavior beyond what the schema already states. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 '美股延遲報價' (US delayed quotes) and lists the asset universe (AI chips, cloud, etc.), so the resource is identifiable. However, it lacks a clear action verb and does not distinguish this batch/list quote tool from siblings like stocks__get_us_stock or stocks__get_theme_stocks.
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?
No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The description merely enumerates categories and example ETFs, leaving the agent to infer that this is for retrieving US quotes rather than alternatives.
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.