The trading-session structure for one exchange, in exchange-local decimal hours (9.5 = 09:30). A four-number "main" means a lunch break (e.g. Tokyo 9–11.5, 12.5–15).
| 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=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds context about the return format (decimal hours, lunch break notation) beyond what annotations provide. No contradiction with annotations.
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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and every sentence adds meaningful information. No unnecessary words or redundancy.
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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides enough context: it explains the output format and a special case (lunch break). It could mention error behavior for unknown exchanges, but that is minor given the overall clarity.
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%, with the exchange parameter fully described in the schema. The description adds value by explaining the output format and the meaning of the four-number array, which helps the agent understand the result without needing an output schema.
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 it retrieves trading session structure for one exchange, using exchange-local decimal hours, and explains the four-number format for lunch breaks. This is a specific verb+resource and distinguishes from sibling tools like get_exchange_status or is_market_open.
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?
Usage guidance is implied but not explicit. The description indicates it returns session structure, but it doesn't state when to use this tool over alternatives like is_market_open or get_exchange, nor does it provide when-not or prerequisite conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.