Retrieve current values, day highs/lows, and change percentages for all Pakistan Stock Exchange indices, including KSE100, KSE30, and KMI30.
All PSX indices (KSE100, KSE30, KMI30, ALLSHR, and ~14 others).
Returns current value, day high/low, change and change % for each. For historical index values call get_eod_history with the index name as the symbol (e.g. 'KSE100').
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the returned fields (current value, day high/low, change, change %) but says nothing about whether the data is real-time or delayed, refresh/caching behavior, or rate limits, which matters for a market-data read.
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 with zero filler; the resource and its contents are front-loaded and the alternative-tool pointer follows. Every clause earns its place.
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 output schema and no annotations, the description usefully compensates by listing the returned fields. It is missing only the data-freshness semantics an agent would want when deciding between this and live-quote siblings.
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 to document and the baseline is 4. The only parameter-like detail given (passing the index name as the symbol to get_eod_history) applies to the sibling tool, not this one.
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?
It names the exact resource (all PSX indices, with examples KSE100, KSE30, KMI30, ALLSHR) and enumerates the returned fields (value, day high/low, change, change %). It explicitly separates itself from get_eod_history for historical data, so an agent can distinguish it from siblings without opening a schema.
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?
It gives a clear routing rule with an alternative named: use get_eod_history with the index name as symbol for historical values. It does not address overlap with other siblings like get_market_snapshot or get_quote, nor when this is the wrong choice, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.