Get detailed data for one specific African exchange by ID — index value, change, trading hours, currency, and status.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| exchange | Yes | Exchange ID. Options: nigeria, ghana, kenya, south-africa, ivory-coast, tanzania, zambia, egypt, morocco, botswana, mauritius, zimbabwe, uganda |
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 covered. The description adds context by specifying the returned data fields, but it does not disclose additional behaviors like pagination, rate limits, or special error handling. This is adequate but not exceptional.
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 a single, well-structured sentence. It front-loads the action ('Get detailed data') and then packs the scope ('one specific African exchange by ID') and expected content ('index value, change, trading hours, currency, and status') with zero wasted words.
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?
The tool is simple (one parameter, no output schema), and the description provides a clear list of return fields, making it self-contained for an agent to understand what it will receive. It could be slightly more explicit about the meaning of 'status' or the exact return shape, but overall it is sufficiently complete.
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 input schema is fully self-documented: the 'exchange' parameter has a clear description and an exhaustive enum with all 13 options. The description's 'by ID' adds no new semantic value beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline score of 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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and clearly identifies the resource ('detailed data for one specific African exchange by ID'). It also lists concrete data fields (index value, change, trading hours, currency, status), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_african_exchanges (plural) and get_african_exchange_movers.
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 phrase 'one specific African exchange' implicitly communicates that this tool is for single-exchange lookups, contrasting with plural/listing alternatives. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, so it falls short of a perfect 5.
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.
Tools are largely distinct in purpose, with clear resource-specific patterns like get_african_exchange_stocks vs get_ngx_all_stocks. Some overlap exists between generic African tools and NGX-specific convenience wrappers (e.g., get_market_open_status vs get_ngx_market_status), and get_african_policy_rates overlaps with get_country_macro_indicators on inflation/policy rate data, but descriptions clarify these boundaries.
All tools follow a consistent get_<domain>_<object> snake_case pattern, with plural/singular used appropriately (e.g., get_african_exchanges vs get_african_exchange). No mixed conventions or vague generic verbs—every name clearly signals its resource.
At 21 tools, the server is on the heavier side but within the 16-25 borderline zone. Each tool addresses a distinct data need for the broad African-markets domain, though some redundancy from NGX-specific wrappers (e.g., get_ngx_market_status vs get_market_open_status) could be trimmed.
The server covers a wide range of market data: exchanges, indices, stocks, FX, macro indicators, yield curves, and bank data. Minor gaps include lack of single-stock price/history for non-NGX exchanges and limited historical data beyond Nigeria's macro series, but core market-analysis workflows are well supported.
