get_financial_prices_snapshotGet the real-time price snapshot for a stock, including the current price, day change, and day change percent.
Published reference price: $0.02 USD per successful request. Account-specific pricing and final settlement may differ.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ticker | No | The stock ticker symbol (e.g. AAPL, MSFT). |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / ticker / descriptionAdded value: +"The stock ticker symbol (e.g. AAPL, MSFT)."Input schema / properties / ticker / descriptionRemoved value: -"The stock ticker symbol (e.g. AAPL, MSFT)."Input schema / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "ticker"
-]New value: +[]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds that the data is real-time and lists the returned fields, but says nothing about pricing/auth behavior beyond the injected billing note or about latency/freshness guarantees.
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 core sentence is front-loaded, tight, and waste-free, leading with the operation and then the payload. The appended pricing block is injected boilerplate rather than authored content and mildly dilutes the signal.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description redundantly summarizes them anyway. However, the schema marks 'ticker' as optional (required list is empty) while the description implies a stock must be named, and no guidance resolves that ambiguity.
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 a single well-documented 'ticker' parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no format, exchange-suffix, or casing guidance beyond what the schema already states.
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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Get the real-time price snapshot for a stock') and enumerates the returned fields (current price, day change, day change percent). It implicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling get_financial_prices by emphasizing 'snapshot' and 'real-time', but does not name or contrast that sibling explicitly, so it falls short of a 5.
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?
There is no statement of when to use this tool versus get_financial_prices, get_financial_financial_metrics_snapshot, or the batch_quote/batch_use siblings. The word 'snapshot' hints at a lighter/faster alternative but the agent must infer that from the name alone.
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.