market_latest_tradesFetch current trade price and size for each stock ticker, with prices in USD and sizes in shares.
The latest trade for each stock ticker (price USD, size shares).
| 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 readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the returning semantics (price in USD, size in shares), which is useful, but says nothing about the timestamp of the 'latest' trade, exchange aggregation, or whether tickers not trading return empty.
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 short sentence that front-loads the resource and ends with the returned fields. No filler, no repetition of the title.
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 simple one-parameter read tool with a 100%-covered schema and annotations carrying the behavior profile, the description is nearly sufficient, and it partially compensates for the absent output schema by naming the returned fields. It still omits any notion of a timestamp or empty-result behavior, leaving a modest gap.
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% and the single tickers parameter is fully documented with an example and bounds (1-200). The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 (retrieve the latest) and resource (trade per stock ticker) plus the returned fields (price USD, size shares). It is distinguishable from market_trades (historical) and crypto/options variants by the 'stock' scoping, but it never explicitly contrasts with the adjacent market_latest_bars and market_latest_quotes siblings.
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 explicit when-to-use guidance or set of alternatives. The word 'latest' implies the intent (one snapshot per ticker vs. a history), but the description never routes an agent between market_latest_trades, market_latest_quotes, market_latest_bars or market_trades.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.