Returns the real-time quote for a major market index.
Index symbols: ^GSPC (S&P 500), ^IXIC (Nasdaq), ^DJI (Dow Jones),
^GSPTSE (TSX), ^FTSE (FTSE 100), ^N225 (Nikkei), ^AORD (All Ords),
^HSI (Hang Seng), ^STI (STI), ^BSESN (Sensex), ^VIX (VIX).
Args:
symbol: Index symbol (e.g. '^GSPC' for S&P 500)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| symbol | Yes | Index symbol, e.g. '^GSPC' for the S&P 500. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the real-time nature and the universe of supported symbols, which is useful context beyond the annotations, but it does not disclose any additional behavioral details like rate limits or exact output format.
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 well-structured with a one-sentence purpose, a bulleted list of supported symbols, and an Args section. Every sentence earns its place; no filler or redundancy. It is front-loaded with the primary action.
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?
Given the low complexity (single parameter) and the presence of helpful annotations, the description is reasonably complete. It covers the tool's scope (real-time index quotes) and acceptable symbols. However, it does not describe the return structure (e.g., fields like price, change, %), which would be useful since no 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 schema covers 100% of parameters with a clear description, but the tool description goes further by enumerating the valid index symbols (e.g., '^GSPC', '^IXIC'), which is essential for correct invocation. This adds meaningful value beyond the schema's single example.
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 real-time quotes for major market indexes, with a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('major market index'). It differentiates from siblings like get_index_historical (historical data) and get_stock_quotes (stock quotes) by the explicit focus on indexes and the list of index symbols.
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 clear context (real-time quotes for major indexes) and even lists valid symbols, which indirectly tells the user when this tool is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly state exclusions or name alternative tools for other quote types (e.g., stocks, forex), so it misses the 'when-not-to-use' guidance.
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.
Many tools have overlapping purposes, e.g. get_etf_analysis vs get_etf_forecast both provide ETF analyst consensus, get_etf_holdings vs get_etf_top_stocks both list constituents, and get_portfolio_overview vs get_portfolio_performance both return returns/performance. The detailed descriptions help, but the sheer number of similar tools creates ambiguity in selection.
The set is largely consistent with a 'get_' prefix and descriptive nouns (get_stock_quotes, get_crypto_quote, get_dividend_history). Minor deviations include 'list_my_portfolios' instead of 'get_my_portfolios' and singular/plural variants like get_all_commodities_quotes vs get_commodity_quote, but the pattern remains predictable.
With 71 tools, the count far exceeds the 50+ threshold described as an extreme mismatch. Even though the server covers a broad financial domain, such a large surface is overwhelming for an agent and includes many redundant or highly specific tools that could be consolidated.
The tool set provides comprehensive coverage of TipRanks data: quotes and historical data for all major asset classes, news, earnings and economic calendars, analyst and sentiment data, financial statements, technical analysis, options, portfolios, and screeners. There are no obvious dead ends for typical financial research tasks.