Retrieve popular stocks in a chosen region with current price and change data. Use it to identify market movers for a specific country or exchange.
Belirli bir bölgede en çok trend olan / ilgi gören hisseleri fiyat ve değişim bilgisiyle döndürür. Örn: TR bölgesi için BIST hisseleri.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| count | No | Döndürülecek sembol sayısı | |
| region | No | Bölge kodu (TR, US, GB, DE, JP vb.) | TR |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the shape of the return content (price and change information), which is useful, but it says nothing about read-only safety, rate limits, ordering criteria for 'trending', or how recency is determined. That is a moderate gap for a no-annotation tool.
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 short sentences, zero filler, with the core purpose front-loaded and the example following as supporting detail. Nothing could be removed without losing 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?
For a simple two-parameter read tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, and the nature of the returned data. The main missing piece is how 'trending' is ranked and how this differs from the market-movers sibling.
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%, with both count and region fully documented (including bounds and an example list of region codes), so the schema already does the heavy lifting. The description only echoes the region concept without adding format or constraint detail beyond it.
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?
The description states a specific verb (döndürür) and resource (en çok trend olan hisseler) scoped to a region, and even gives a concrete example (TR → BIST). It does not, however, differentiate itself from close siblings like get_market_movers or get_market_summary, which an agent could easily confuse with 'trending'.
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?
Usage is only implied: 'trending/interested stocks in a region' suggests a discovery use case, and the TR/BIST example hints at regional scoping. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to an alternative such as get_market_movers for a different kind of popularity ranking.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.