Map financial instrument identifiers such as tickers, ISINs, CUSIPs, and SEDOLs to FIGI codes for accurate security identification.
Map a financial instrument identifier (ticker, ISIN, CUSIP) to FIGI.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id_type | No | Identifier type: TICKER, ISIN, CUSIP, SEDOL (default: TICKER). | |
| id_value | Yes | Identifier value (e.g. AAPL). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.11Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It states the mapping but omits authentication needs, rate limits, error behavior, whether multiple FIGIs can be returned, and pagination.
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 naming the verb and resource, with input types listed compactly. Every word earns its place.
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?
There is no output schema and no annotations. The description says it maps to FIGI but not whether the result is a single FIGI or a list, the response format, or error cases for unmappable identifiers, leaving significant gaps for an integration tool.
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% with descriptions for both parameters. The description lists TICKER, ISIN, and CUSIP (matching some id_type values but omitting SEDOL) and adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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 (map) and resource (financial instrument identifier) plus the resulting resource (FIGI). It enumerates accepted identifier types, but does not distinguish itself from the sibling tool openfigi_search.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool rather than openfigi_search or any alternative. The context is only implied: the agent has an identifier and wants a FIGI.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.