get_quoteRetrieves a simulated stock quote by NSE symbol, including last price, previous close, day change, day high, and day low.
Current simulated price for one stock: last price, previous close, day change, day high and low.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| symbol | Yes | NSE symbol, for example RELIANCE. Use search_instruments if unsure. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description's one real addition is 'simulated', signalling this is paper-trading data rather than live market prices — a meaningful trait not in the annotations, though latency/staleness and error behavior for invalid symbols are unstated.
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?
A single dense sentence with zero filler, leading with the core purpose and then the returned fields. It is a fragment without an explicit verb phrase ('Returns...'), a minor stylistic gap rather than a substantive one.
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?
For a one-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and annotations covering safety, the description is nearly sufficient: it names the data source ('simulated') and enumerates the five returned values, substituting for the absent output schema. Only symbol-validation failure behavior is left unaddressed.
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% and the symbol parameter is fully documented, including the search_instruments fallback. The description only reinforces that exactly one symbol is accepted ('one stock') and that the price is current rather than historical, adding marginal value over the schema.
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 resource ('Current simulated price for one stock') and enumerates the returned fields, so the agent knows exactly what it gets. It does not name or differentiate itself from siblings like get_positions or preview_order, but the domain distinction is obvious.
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?
Usage is only implied — the agent infers 'call this when you need a price for a single symbol'. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no pointer to alternatives; the useful 'use search_instruments if unsure' hint lives in the schema, not the description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.