get_batch_quotesQuotes for up to 20 stocks in one call, each with price_basis and last_trade_date as in get_stock_quote. NSE prices can lag the exchange by up to ~15 minutes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| symbols | No | REQUIRED. Array of up to 20 stock symbols, e.g. ["RELIANCE","TCS","HDFCBANK"]. Over 20, split across calls. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / symbols / anyOfPrevious value: -[
- {
- "type": "array"
- },
- {
- "type": "string"
- }
-]New value: +[
+ {
+ "items": {
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ ]
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely non-obvious trait: NSE prices can lag the exchange by ~15 minutes, which materially affects freshness decisions. It does not address unknown/invalid symbol handling or partial-failure 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?
Two tight sentences with zero filler; the capacity limit and field parity lead, with the latency caveat as a secondary clause. Nothing is repeated or padded.
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?
No output schema exists, and the description names the key returned fields plus a freshness caveat, which is enough to interpret results. It stops short of describing error behavior for invalid symbols or whether missing symbols are omitted versus errored.
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 coverage is 100% and the single 'symbols' parameter is fully documented in the schema, including the 20-symbol cap and split guidance. The description restates the cap and clarifies payload fields but adds no syntax beyond what the schema provides. 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?
States a specific verb+resource with scope ('Quotes for up to 20 stocks in one call') and defines the per-item payload (price_basis, last_trade_date). The reference to get_stock_quote anchors it against the single-symbol sibling, though it doesn't explicitly rule out get_live_quote or get_market_data.
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?
Batching intent is clear from 'up to 20 stocks in one call' and the schema's 'Over 20, split across calls,' implying this is the multi-symbol path. However, there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over get_stock_quote, get_live_quote, or get_market_data, leaving the choice to inference.
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.