bd-finance-mcp

Get Stock

get_stock

Retrieve current prices for specific stock codes on one exchange. Submit symbols like ['GP', 'BRACBANK'] to get up-to-date quotes from the selected market.

Instructions

Current prices for specific trading codes on one exchange.

Codes are short symbols like ['GP', 'BRACBANK']. Use compare_exchanges to see one share priced on both markets at once.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "codes": "<codes>"
    },
    "name": "get_stock"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`codes`	Yes
`exchange`	No		dse

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 8, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description itself must carry safety and behavior. It clearly frames a read-only price lookup, but gives no details on invalid codes, data delay, limits, or error behavior. This is acceptable for a simple lookup but leaves some edge cases undisclosed.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, each earning its place: the first states the core function, the second gives an example and an alternative. No filler or redundant restatement.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a low-complexity tool with an output schema, the main gap is exchange values: an agent cannot know valid options beyond the default 'dse' from this description. Otherwise, the description and schema together are enough to call get_stock for the default case.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The description adds concrete meaning to codes with the example ['GP', 'BRACBANK'], which the bare schema lacks. However, the exchange parameter is only implied by 'one exchange' and its accepted values or relationship to the default 'dse' are not explained.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific action: fetching current prices for given trading codes on a single exchange. The 'one exchange' scope and explicit 'Codes are short symbols' example distinguish it from compare_exchanges.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly routes agents to compare_exchanges when a share price on both markets is needed, which defines when not to use this tool. 'Specific trading codes on one exchange' also implies it is for targeted quotes rather than market-wide tools like top_movers or market_summary.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server