Get latest ticker for a TradFi symbol
Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {
"symbol": "<symbol>"
},
"name": "cex_cfd_query_symbol_ticker"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| symbol | Yes | Trading symbol code |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds 'latest' as a temporal snapshot indicator and 'TradFi symbol' as domain context, but it does not disclose rate limits, auth requirements, or return format details.
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 definition is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It is appropriately sized for a simple one-parameter query tool, and every word earns its place.
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 low-complexity, one-parameter read query with full schema coverage and rich annotations, the description is minimally adequate: it states the action, resource, and domain. However, with no output schema and no mention of what ticker data contains (e.g., bid/ask/last fields), it omits details an agent might want before relying on the return shape.
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%, with the single parameter documented as 'Trading symbol code' and an example 'EURUSD'. The description adds only the domain qualifier 'TradFi symbol'; it does not provide additional syntax, format, or constraint details beyond what the schema already states, matching the baseline for high schema coverage.
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 states a specific verb ('Get'), resource ('latest ticker'), and domain ('TradFi symbol'), which is clear and not tautological. It does not explicitly distinguish this ticker tool from siblings like cex_cfd_query_symbol_kline or cex_fx_get_fx_tickers, but the domain and resource are specific enough for an agent to identify it.
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 provides no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool guidance. Usage is only implied by the name and phrase 'latest ticker for a TradFi symbol', leaving the agent to infer context and comparisons to sibling tools.
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.