get_stock_quoteGet an end-of-day quote for a semiconductor stock covered by VLSI Korea market data (~113 tickers). Match by slug, ticker (e.g. '000660' or '000660.KS'), or company name (e.g. 'SK hynix'). Daily change % is computed from the last two daily closes. Delayed EOD data, not investment advice.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | Slug, ticker, or company name, e.g. 'SK hynix', '000660', 'NVDA' |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context: data is delayed end-of-day, change % is derived from the last two daily closes, and it is not investment advice. It stops short of saying what happens for out-of-coverage tickers or what fields are returned.
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 tight sentences, front-loaded with purpose and scope, with no filler. The ticker-format example and change-% computation detail both earn their 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?
With no output schema, the description does mention the computed daily change %, but it doesn't sketch the returned fields (price, currency, date) an agent would need to consume the result. Coverage, freshness, and input semantics are all otherwise fully addressed.
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 single 'query' parameter is documented in-schema. The description restates the three matching modes with examples ('000660.KS', 'SK hynix'), which is useful reinforcement but largely overlaps 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 and resource ('Get an end-of-day quote for a semiconductor stock') plus an explicit scope ('VLSI Korea market data, ~113 tickers'). This clearly separates it from the news/article/briefing siblings without requiring schema inspection.
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?
Scope constraints ('semiconductor stock covered by VLSI Korea', ~113 tickers) implicitly tell the agent when this tool applies and when it won't. It gives no explicit alternative routing or when-not guidance, but the coverage boundary is clear enough for correct selection.
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.