Skip to main content
Glama

get_stock_price

Latest price and currency for one ticker. Not counted in the Score VI quota.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "symbol": "<symbol>"
    },
    "name": "get_stock_price"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
symbolYesStock ticker (e.g. AAPL, MSFT, MC.PA)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / symbol / description
      Previous value: -"Ticker boursier (ex: AAPL, MSFT, MC.PA)"New value: +"Stock ticker (e.g. AAPL, MSFT, MC.PA)"
  2. First observed

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one non-obvious behavioral trait: the call is exempt from the Score VI quota. That is genuinely useful context. It still omits whether the price is real-time or delayed and how errors for an unknown ticker are surfaced.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the core capability front-loaded. The quota sentence is terse and relevant, though 'Score VI' is left undefined, so the reader cannot fully act on it.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a one-parameter read tool this covers the essentials, but with no output schema the description should say more about the return payload (fields beyond price/currency, real-time vs. delayed, unknown-ticker behavior). Coverage is adequate rather than complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% for the single 'symbol' parameter, including format examples (AAPL, MSFT, MC.PA), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no symbol syntax or exchange-qualifier meaning beyond what the schema already documents.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb+resource and scope: 'Latest price and currency for one ticker.' An agent knows exactly what it returns. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling get_price_history, which an agent could easily confuse it with.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no comparison to alternatives such as get_price_history or analyze_stock. The second sentence ('Not counted in the Score VI quota') is a metering note, not usage direction, so the agent gets no help choosing between this and its siblings.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources