Get today's intraday minute-level price data for stocks.
Returns minute-start timestamp in milliseconds, price, volume, turnover,
and average price. Outside trading hours, data may be present or empty.
Supported: US stocks, Hong Kong stocks, A-shares.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| type | No | Product type for disambiguation: stock, crypto, forex, indices | |
| symbols | Yes | Comma-separated stock codes, max 50. E.g. 'AAPL.US,700.HK' |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / symbols / descriptionAdded value: +"Comma-separated stock codes, max 50. E.g. 'AAPL.US,700.HK'"Input schema / properties / type / descriptionAdded value: +"Product type for disambiguation: stock, crypto, forex, indices"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the return shape (minute-start timestamp in ms, price, volume, turnover, average price), warns that data may be present or empty outside trading hours, and scopes supported markets (US, HK, A-shares). It doesn't state read-only nature explicitly or address rate limits, keeping it short of a 5.
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?
Front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by return fields, a timing caveat, and coverage scope. No filler sentences; the indentation artifacts are cosmetic rather than wasteful.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description appropriately explains the returned fields and the empty-data edge case. Combined with a fully documented input schema and low parameter count, an agent has what it needs to invoke this correctly; only cross-tool routing guidance is absent.
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%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds only the supported-market list, which indirectly constrains symbol format, but does not clarify the 'type' disambiguation parameter or symbol syntax. Baseline 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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Get today's intraday minute-level price data for stocks') and even enumerates the returned fields. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like get_kline, though it never names an alternative to contrast against.
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 is implied by 'today's intraday minute-level' data and the supported-markets note, which tells the agent this is a same-day granularity tool. However, it gives no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over get_kline, get_kline_latest, or get_recent_trades, and offers no exclusions.
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.