The issuer behind a ticker: ISIN, LEI, listing and status, from the record: signed and receipted.
Scored across 3 tools
get_ticker and resolve_issuer both accept ticker/ISIN/LEI and return issuer-related data, so an agent could plausibly pick the wrong one; the descriptions do clarify that resolve_issuer is a routing/discovery step that names the owning node while get_ticker returns the signed record values. list_nodes is clearly distinct (infrastructure roster). The boundary is workable but requires reading the full descriptions rather than the names.
All three tools follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern: get_ticker, list_nodes, resolve_issuer. Verbs (get/list/resolve) match the semantic action in each case with no stylistic drift.
Three tools is on the thin side for an issuer/ticker registry surface; the server is deliberately minimal as a 'door', but the set feels under-provisioned relative to the domain described. Count is not wrong, just borderline.
There is a read path (get_ticker), a discovery path (resolve_issuer), and infrastructure listing (list_nodes), but no way to search by company name, list issuers within a market, or enumerate what records exist. Agents hitting an unknown_issuer have no fallback browsing operation, which is a notable gap.
get_ticker is the issuer behind a ticker: a ticker and its exchange, or an ISIN or LEI, returns the issuer, its ISIN, its LEI, its listing and its status — every value with its source page and read date, signed by the node of the listing's market and receipted. Served from the record as read; a value the market's record does not carry says not_on_record. Typed errors: unknown_issuer, ambiguous, not_on_record (per field, per market), invalid_request. Door: https://mcp.getticker.ai/mcp (routes to the owning node); every node door answers it for its own market.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| market | No | Optional two-letter market code. | |
| exchange | No | Optional exchange for a ticker (NASDAQ, LSE, XETRA, TSX, …). | |
| identifier | Yes | Ticker, ISIN or LEI. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the bar is lower; the description still adds real behavior: every value carries a source page and read date, is signed by the listing market's node and receipted, and absent fields return not_on_record rather than being omitted. It also enumerates the typed error taxonomy (unknown_issuer, ambiguous, not_on_record, invalid_request), which is genuinely useful for failure handling.
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 purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, which is good, but the single run-on sentence is dense with unexplained jargon ('receipted', 'Door:', 'signed by the node') and could be split into purpose, returns, and errors. Size is reasonable; readability suffers.
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?
With no output schema, the description correctly carries the return-value burden: it lists the returned fields, provenance metadata, and the not_on_record convention, plus the error set. The main gap for a 3-parameter lookup is the lack of any statement about how it differs from resolve_issuer.
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 the baseline is 3, and the description largely restates the schema's identifiers (ticker, ISIN, LEI, exchange). It adds one real clarification — 'a ticker and its exchange' implies exchange should accompany a ticker identifier — but does not explain how market relates to exchange or when market alone is sufficient.
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 opening clause names the resource and the lookup direction ('the issuer behind a ticker') and enumerates the returned fields (issuer, ISIN, LEI, listing, status), so an agent can tell what it gets back. It never distinguishes itself from the sibling resolve_issuer, which sounds like an overlapping lookup, so differentiation is left to inference.
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?
There is no explicit when-to-use statement and no comparison against resolve_issuer or list_nodes, despite resolve_issuer being an obvious candidate for the same lookup intent. The only routing hint is 'every node door answers it for its own market', which explains deployment rather than tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Every market node on the roster (nodes.json, region on each), which are live, their regional doors and Agent Cards.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds content-level context — that it reads nodes.json, flags which nodes are live, and includes regional doors and Agent Cards — but says nothing about size, ordering, or caching.
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?
A single dense sentence with no filler, front-loading the resource and then the payload. Some jargon ('regional doors') is left undefined, which costs a point.
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?
No output schema exists, so the description carries the burden of describing returns; it does name the four content types an agent will receive. It stops short of framing the response shape (array? keyed by region?), leaving a modest gap for a no-param list tool.
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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain; the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies no filtering inputs are needed.
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 the resource (market nodes) and enumerates the contents returned: roster entries from nodes.json, live status, regional doors, and Agent Cards. That distinguishes it from get_eco, get_signal, and resolve_issuer, though the verb is implied rather than stated ('Every market node on the roster...').
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 statement of when to call this versus the siblings (get_eco, get_signal, resolve_issuer), nor any preconditions. Usage is only inferable from the noun phrase itself.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Find a listed company by ticker, ISIN or LEI: the apex names the owning node and forwards to that node's regional door for the record summary.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| identifier | Yes | Ticker with or without exchange (SHOP, TSX:SHOP, SHEL.L, BHP.AX, D05.SI, NESN.SW, SAP.DE, 7203.T, 005930.KS), ISIN, LEI, an exact legal name or a sourced alias. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world behavior. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context — that the apex node resolves ownership and forwards to a regional node for the summary — but says nothing about failure modes (unknown identifier), latency, or what the summary contains.
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?
A single sentence, front-loaded with the purpose before the routing detail, with no filler. The trailing architecture jargon ('apex names the owning node and forwards to that node's regional door') is dense and slightly obscures rather than clarifies.
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?
With no output schema and no annotations covering the return value, the description carries the burden of explaining results, yet only says 'the record summary' without defining it. For a single-parameter lookup the input side is well covered, but the output side and the internal routing metaphor remain under-specified.
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% and the parameter description already spells out ticker formats, ISIN, LEI, exact legal name and sourced alias. The description adds little beyond repeating 'ticker, ISIN or LEI', and in fact omits the legal-name and alias forms the schema supports, so it is baseline at best.
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 gives a concrete verb ('Find') and resource ('listed company') and enumerates the identifier kinds (ticker, ISIN, LEI), so an agent can tell what the tool does. However, it never contrasts itself with the nearby sibling get_record, even though it also mentions returning 'the record summary', leaving some ambiguity about which tool to pick.
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 description implies the tool is for looking up a company from an identifier, but offers no explicit when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use, and no comparison to siblings like get_record or list_nodes. The agent must infer that resolution is the entry point to the record summary.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
get_tickerlist_nodesresolve_issuerThe issuer record as of any date, from the sealed vintage: signed and receipted (RCO-10060).
Each market's disclosure regime as one sourced, signed object, with the issuer's ACM-68000 signal.
The ACM-68000 signal of a listed security in its home market: trading, not listed, read the filing.
The disclosures of an issuer in a date range, from the record: signed and receipted (RCO-10060).
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.