availablebrapi.dev — complete list of all available Brazilian market ticker symbols supported by the quote endpoint.
This call uses example arguments supplied in the tool’s input schema.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "available"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the brapi.dev source and the 'complete list' scope, which is useful context. However, it does not disclose behavior such as response structure, rate limits, or whether the list is dynamic, leaving some gaps.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose and source. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or irrelevant information.
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 zero parameters and an output schema present, the description fully captures the tool's role: enumerating supported Brazilian tickers for the quote endpoint. The return structure is presumably documented in the output schema, so the description need not duplicate it.
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 has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100%, so no parameter semantics are needed beyond what the schema provides. The baseline for no-parameter tools is 4, and the description adds no unnecessary param details.
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 a specific verb ('list') and resource ('all available Brazilian market ticker symbols'), and explicitly ties it to the quote endpoint. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like quote and quote_list, which focus on retrieving quotes rather than enumerating valid symbols.
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 clear context by indicating the tool lists symbols supported by the quote endpoint, implying it should be used to discover valid tickers before using quote. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.
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.