get_stock_detailsRetrieve detailed company profiles, current stock prices, and financial data for Indian stocks by name. Use it to fetch specific stock information.
Get detailed company profiles, stock prices, and financials.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Name of the stock (e.g., 'RELIANCE') |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not disclose auth requirements, rate limits, data freshness, or any other operational trait; it merely lists the categories of data returned.
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 a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a one-parameter read tool, though it could be slightly more informative without becoming verbose.
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 parameter is fully documented in the schema. However, the description still omits usage context and behavioral traits, leaving clear gaps for a tool with many siblings and no annotations.
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%, so the schema already documents the single 'name' parameter with an example. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 names a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('stock details'), then enumerates contents: company profiles, stock prices, financials. It is clear at a glance but does not distinguish this tool from siblings like get_historical_data or get_stock_forecasts that also involve stock prices.
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 alternatives named, and no prerequisites stated. The description only implies a generic retrieval scenario, leaving the agent to infer when this tool beats its many siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.