SiteCheck Company Records

Euronext listed equities: lists or searches shares on one

b2b_euronext_equities

Read-only

Euronext listed equities (daily list from live.euronext.com): lists or searches shares on one Euronext market by MIC code (e.g. XAMS Amsterdam, XPAR Paris) and returns name, ISIN, ticker, currency, last close, volume and turnover. End-of-day data from the last trading day; not real-time. Price: $0.002 in USDC per successful call, paid with x402 (Base, Solana or Arc); failed calls are not charged.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "b2b_euronext_equities"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`q`	No	Optional name, ticker or ISIN filter, up to 40 characters
`mic`	No	Market MIC code, 4 letters, e.g. XAMS, XPAR, XBRU, XLIS
`limit`	No	Rows to return, 1 to 50 (default 10)

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`mic`	No
`query`	No
`source`	No
`matches`	No
`results`	No
`checkedAt`	No
`totalListed`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 23, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Beyond the readOnly/openWorld annotations, the description discloses data freshness ('end-of-day from the last trading day; not real-time'), cost ($0.002 USDC per successful call), payment rail (x402 on Base, Solana or Arc) and that failed calls are not charged. These are genuinely decision-relevant facts an agent cannot get from annotations, though error behaviour for invalid MICs is unmentioned.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the identity and scope, then return fields, then freshness and pricing. Dense but every clause carries information; only the return-field listing slightly overlaps what the output schema already covers.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With an output schema present, the return shape need not be explained, yet the description still names the fields, adds freshness semantics and a cost model. For a low-complexity, zero-required-parameter listing tool this leaves nothing an agent needs missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already carries the parameter documentation. The description restates the MIC-based market filter and echoes example codes (XAMS Amsterdam, XPAR Paris) that the schema already provides, adding gloss but no new constraint such as default market or multi-MIC behaviour.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('lists or searches shares on one Euronext market') plus the data source (live.euronext.com) and the returned fields, which separates it cleanly from generic directory siblings like b2b_nyse_listings_directory. An agent knows exactly what it retrieves without opening the schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied rather than stated: 'on one Euronext market by MIC code' signals single-market scoping, and the q parameter implies free-text search. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or reference to an alternative sibling for other exchanges, so the agent must infer the boundary.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All SiteCheck Company Records tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?