search_securitiesFind NSE symbols for a company, ETF, or index by name when the exact ticker is unknown. Returns matching symbols.
Find NSE symbols for a company, ETF or index by name. Use this whenever the exact symbol is unknown.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum results. | |
| query | Yes | Company name or part of a symbol, e.g. 'tata motors', 'hdfc'. |
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 and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral detail beyond them: no mention of pagination, result caps, or partial-match semantics, which for a search tool is a real but modest gap.
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, zero padding, with the purpose stated first and the usage condition immediately after. Nothing is wasted.
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 two-parameter lookup with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose and trigger adequately. It leaves the returned shape (symbol list with names/exchanges) unstated, but that is a minor omission given the tool's simplicity.
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 both parameters (query, limit) are documented with examples and bounds, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no syntax or matching guidance 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 (find) and resource (NSE symbols for company, ETF or index) with the lookup key (by name). The NSE-securities scope implicitly separates it from the sibling search_mutual_funds, though no sibling is named outright.
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?
"Use this whenever the exact symbol is unknown" gives a clear triggering condition that routes the agent here before symbol-based tools like get_quote. No explicit exclusions or named alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.