Retrieve price adjustment factors to calculate backadjusted prices for historical analysis.
Get price adjustment factors for backadjusted prices
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| dataset | Yes | Dataset code (e.g., XNAS.ITCH) | |
| symbols | Yes | Comma-separated list of symbols | |
| start_date | Yes | Start date (YYYY-MM-DD) | |
| end_date | No | Optional end date (YYYY-MM-DD) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must carry the full behavioral burden. It only implies a read operation but does not disclose any safety info, data range limitations, or response structure. Minimal transparency.
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?
Single sentence, no wasted words, front-loaded with the action and resource. Perfectly concise for the purpose stated.
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?
Tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description is too brief: does not explain what adjustment factors are, their importance, or what the response contains. Lacks completeness for a data retrieval tool.
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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all four parameters. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, achieving the baseline of 3.
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 the verb 'Get' and the resource 'price adjustment factors for backadjusted prices'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like reference_get_corporate_actions by specifying the type of adjustment.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., reference_get_corporate_actions for corporate actions). No exclusions or prerequisites mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.