market_latest_quotesFetch best bid and ask quotes for up to 200 stock tickers, including USD price and share size; sides without active quotes return null.
The latest best bid and ask for each stock ticker (prices USD, sizes shares); a side with no active quote is null (no_data).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tickers | Yes | Stock tickers, e.g. ["AAPL", "BRK-B"] (1-200). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: price/size units (USD, shares) and the null/no_data convention for a side with no active quote, which the schema does not convey.
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?
One dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose and tucks units and null semantics into parentheticals. No filler or repetition; every clause carries 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?
With no output schema, the description does the work of explaining the return shape (bid/ask per ticker, null for a missing side) and units, which is the critical gap it needed to fill. It is slightly thin on batch semantics, such as behavior for unknown tickers in a multi-ticker request.
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% for the single tickers parameter, including the 1-200 range and an example format, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no ticker-specific semantics (e.g., symbol normalization or batch failure behavior) beyond what the schema already states.
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 verb and resource: the latest best bid and ask for each stock ticker, which is precise and actionable. It does not, however, distinguish itself from close siblings like market_quotes, market_snapshots, or the crypto/options/fixed-income variants of 'latest_quotes', so the agent must infer the asset-class scoping from the name rather than the text.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives such as market_quotes or market_snapshots. The agent is left to infer that this is the point-in-time top-of-book call 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.