Get end-of-day closing equity prices in USD for specified tickers or all tracked companies. Requires Pro plan, data is indicative and not for trading.
Get the latest closing prices for tracked equities, in USD. End-of-day and indicative, not exchange-licensed and not for trading. Requires Pro plan or higher.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| symbols | No | Comma-separated tickers (e.g. 'AAPL,MSFT,NVDA'). Omit for all tracked companies. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses data quality and licensing limitations ('not exchange-licensed and not for trading') and access requirements ('Requires Pro plan or higher'), which is meaningful beyond the name and schema.
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?
Three short sentences, each earning its place: what the tool returns, its data caveats, and access requirements. Key information is front-loaded and there is no wasted text.
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?
The tool has a single optional parameter and no output schema; the description covers the data scope, currency, licensing caveats, and access level. A slight gap is the lack of any detail on the response format, but the simple read-oriented nature makes this non-critical.
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 sole optional parameter, including the comma-separated format, examples, and omit-for-all behavior. The description adds no parameter-level detail, matching the baseline.
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 a specific action and resource: getting the latest closing prices for tracked equities in USD. It distinguishes itself from the currency, crypto, and metal rate siblings through the equity focus, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.
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?
The description gives useful context: prices are end-of-day, indicative, not exchange-licensed, and not for trading, plus the Pro plan requirement. This implies appropriate use cases and explicitly rules out trading, though it does not name a sibling alternative.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.