Access historical sector performance data using the Historical Market Sector Performance API. Review how different sectors have performed over time across various stock exchanges.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | No | End date (YYYY-MM-DD) | |
| from | No | Start date (YYYY-MM-DD) | |
| sector | Yes | Sector (e.g., Energy) | |
| exchange | No | Exchange (e.g., NASDAQ) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only states that it accesses historical sector performance data and allows review of performance over time, but it does not mention response format, date-range behavior, or other relevant details. This is minimal transparency for a tool with no annotations.
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 concise, consisting of two short sentences. The first sentence is somewhat redundant with the tool name and includes the filler 'using the Historical Market Sector Performance API,' but the second sentence adds useful context about reviewing performance across exchanges. Overall, it is efficient.
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?
The tool has no output schema and no annotations, and the description provides only a general sense of the returned data (sector performance over time). It does not explain what fields or format to expect, nor any limitations. This is incomplete for a tool with four parameters and no output schema.
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 schema has 100% coverage of the parameters (sector, from, to, exchange), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's field descriptions, but it does not need to.
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 that the tool accesses historical sector performance data and explains its purpose: reviewing sector performance over time across various stock exchanges. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by emphasizing 'historical' and 'across various stock exchanges,' though it does not explicitly name alternatives.
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 implies the tool is for reviewing historical sector performance data, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like getHistoricalSectorPE or getSectorPerformanceSnapshot. No exclusions or alternative tools are mentioned.
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.