Retrieve current prices for stocks, crypto, ETFs, commodities, and currencies. Filter by asset type or search by name or symbol to find available assets.
List available assets (stocks, crypto, etc.) with current prices
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| search | No | Search by name or symbol | |
| assetType | No | Filter by type: crypto, stock, etf, commodity, currency |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure. 'List' conveys a read-only operation and 'with current prices' indicates what the result contains. However, it does not clarify whether prices are real-time/delayed, whether results are paginated, or whether the asset list is exhaustive or filtered by user context.
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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every phrase ('List', 'available assets', asset examples, 'with current prices') contributes useful information.
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 is simple and the schema is fully documented, but there is no output schema or annotations and the description leaves the scope of 'available' slightly ambiguous. It also omits practical expectations such as pagination, sort order, or how this differs from portfolio/history tools.
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 both parameters (search, assetType) are already documented. The description adds asset-class examples that loosely echo assetType, but no additional search-syntax, filtering behavior, or format details beyond 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 action ('List') and resource ('available assets'), with examples of asset classes and the output ('current prices'). The word 'available' plus the examples positions it as a market/catalog listing rather than the user-holding tools like get_portfolio_summary or list_investment_transactions.
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 offers no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. Sibling tools such as get_asset_price_history and get_portfolio_summary are not mentioned, so an agent must infer the correct context from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.