Retrieve current prices and daily change percentages for major global indices: S&P 500, NASDAQ, Dow Jones, Hang Seng, SSE, CSI 300.
Get summary of major global indices (S&P 500, NASDAQ, Dow Jones, Hang Seng, SSE, CSI 300).
Returns current price and daily change percentage for each index.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool returns (price and change percentage) but does not explicitly mention that it is read-only, nor does it disclose any side effects, data freshness, or potential errors. While the word 'Get' implies a read operation, more transparency would be helpful.
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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and followed by a precise list of indices and the return contents. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.
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 tool with no parameters and a clear output schema (present but not shown), the description is sufficient. It covers the scope, the exact indices, and the nature of the returned data. An agent can confidently call this tool without further information.
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 tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description does not need to add parameter details, and none are provided. Per rubric, 0 params sets a baseline of 4, which is appropriate since there is nothing to clarify.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get summary of major global indices' and lists the specific indices (S&P 500, NASDAQ, etc.). It also specifies the output (current price and daily change percentage). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like stock_quote (individual stocks) and market_status (market status), making it easy for an agent to identify the right tool.
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 implies when to use the tool (when you need index summaries) but does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives. For instance, it does not say 'for individual stock quotes, use stock_quote' or provide exclusions. The context is clear but lacks explicit routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.