The full record for one exchange: sessions (in exchange-local decimal hours), holidays, early closes, and official source links.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| exchange | Yes | Exchange id (e.g. "nyse", "nasdaq", "lse", "nikkei", "hkex") OR common name/city (e.g. "New York Stock Exchange", "Tokyo", "London"). Case-insensitive. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so behavioral safety is covered. The description adds what data is returned, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like error handling or response format. Value added beyond annotations is moderate.
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?
Single sentence, front-loaded with the core purpose, no wasted words. Efficient and clear.
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 one-parameter tool with strong annotations, the description is complete enough. It specifies the output content. Minor omission: does not mention if timezone or other metadata is included, but overall sufficient.
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%, so the schema already documents the parameter. The description does not add semantic details beyond what the schema provides (e.g., no additional format or example clarification). Baseline score applies.
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 'full record for one exchange' and lists specific components (sessions, holidays, early closes, source links), which distinguishes it from siblings like list_exchanges or get_exchange_status.
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 explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives. The description implies it's for comprehensive details of a single exchange, but lacks exclusion criteria or context for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.