get_ticker_scoreTapeline's current six-factor score (0-100), signal label, confidence and one-line reason for a single US ticker. It does not return a price or a daily move. Crypto scores come from daily closes, sometimes several days old. Use when asked what Tapeline says about a specific stock. Pass the exact US ticker symbol.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| symbol | Yes | US ticker symbol, e.g. NVDA or BRK.B |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose non-obvious behavior: no price/daily-move return and crypto scores being derived from daily closes that may be several days stale. It omits auth requirements, rate limits, and error behavior, but the staleness caveat is genuinely useful context.
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?
Four short sentences, front-loaded with what is returned followed by scope caveats. The trailing 'Pass the exact US ticker symbol' partially duplicates the schema description, a minor redundancy.
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 must describe returns — and it does so well (score, label, confidence, one-line reason). For a single-symbol lookup this is nearly complete; only error/empty-result behavior is unaddressed.
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 sole parameter is already documented with an example (NVDA or BRK.B). The description's 'pass the exact US ticker symbol' adds only mild reinforcement over the schema, so baseline 3 applies.
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+resource ('Tapeline's current six-factor score... for a single US ticker') and enumerates the returned fields (score, signal label, confidence, reason). It also carves out what it is not ('does not return a price or a daily move'), which sharply bounds the tool's identity.
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?
Explicitly says 'Use when asked what Tapeline says about a specific stock', giving a clear triggering condition. It lacks any explicit when-not or alternative-tool routing, but with no siblings listed there is nothing to route to.
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.