get_quoteFetch current close, daily change, and 52-week range for an NSE symbol to evaluate price movement and trading range.
Latest close, daily change and 52-week range for an NSE symbol (e.g. RELIANCE, TCS, NIFTY).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| symbol | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden, yet it says nothing about whether prices are delayed or real-time, auth requirements, rate limits, or what happens for an invalid/unknown symbol. Only the returned field names are disclosed, which is the bare minimum for a market-data read.
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?
One sentence that front-loads the payload contents and ends with the scoping constraint and examples. Nothing is wasted, though leading with the verb would make the action even more immediate.
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 structure needn't be explained, and the single parameter is illustrated. However, for a zero-annotation tool the description leaves out data freshness and failure behavior, which materially affect how an agent should present and retry the result.
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 coverage is 0%, but the description compensates partially with concrete examples (RELIANCE, TCS, NIFTY), showing that index names are valid and implying NSE ticker format. It still omits casing rules, exchange prefixes, or series suffixes, so an agent could still pass malformed symbols.
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 the exact fields returned (latest close, daily change, 52-week range) scoped to one NSE symbol, which is far more specific than a restatement of the name. It implies single-symbol scope, distinguishing it from compare_symbols, but never names the siblings explicitly.
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?
Usage is only implied: 'symbol' plus the field list tells an agent this is a single-symbol snapshot tool. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative such as compare_symbols for multi-symbol work or get_signals for other data.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.