Fetch Google Finance market indices, including ticker, exchange, current value, change, change percent, previous close, and last update time.
Google Finance market indices. Returns the market indices Google Finance lists, such as the Dow Jones Industrial Average. Each index has its ticker, exchange, name, current value, change and change percent, previous close and last update time.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully enumerates the returned fields (ticker, exchange, name, value, change, change percent, previous close, last update time), which effectively substitutes for the missing output schema. It says nothing about freshness, pagination, or whether the list is exhaustive, but for a no-argument read-only listing that is a modest gap rather than a serious one.
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?
Two sentences, zero waste, with the core purpose front-loaded and the field inventory second. Every clause adds information.
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 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description's field enumeration is the main thing making the tool callable and interpretable, and it does that job. What's missing is any indication of scope (all indices? which exchanges?) or relationship to the sibling market tools.
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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies; the schema is empty and fully consistent with the description.
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 ('Returns the market indices Google Finance lists') and even gives a concrete example (Dow Jones Industrial Average), so the purpose is unambiguous. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the many sibling tools (google_finance_markets_top, _trending, _movers, _featured), so an agent can't tell from the text alone which market-list endpoint is the right one.
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 when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of any alternative tool. Given the dense cluster of google_finance_markets_* siblings, the absence of routing guidance is a real gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.