robinhood_get_quoteRetrieve a real-time stock quote by entering a ticker symbol. Get current price data for portfolio analysis and research.
Get real-time quote for a stock symbol.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| symbol | Yes | Stock ticker symbol (e.g., "AAPL", "TSLA") |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Get real-time quote' and gives no information about read-only safety, data latency, authentication requirements, rate limits, or possible error conditions. The lack of any safety or side-effect disclosure is a notable 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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence of nine words with no redundancy or filler. It efficiently captures the core purpose without unnecessary detail, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
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?
Given the tool's low complexity, one well-documented parameter, and the presence of an output schema, the description is adequate for basic invocation. However, it lacks usage guidance and behavioral caveats (e.g., real-time data limitations, market hours), so an agent has incomplete context for choosing and relying on this 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?
The input schema fully documents the single parameter 'symbol' with an example, so the description adds no additional semantic value beyond what the schema already provides. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 action ('Get real-time quote') and resource ('stock symbol'), clearly indicating the tool retrieves current market data. It does not explicitly name sibling tools for differentiation, but the resource type is distinct enough from tools like get_fundamentals or get_historicals. The purpose is clear and specific.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when a real-time quote is needed, nor does it reference any sibling tools or exclusions. An agent must infer the appropriate context from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.