Retrieve a cross-asset market board showing current levels and changes for indices, rates, commodities, and currencies.
The cross-asset board: indices, rates, commodities and currencies, each with its level and change. Wider than market_tape, which is the strip's condensed form of the same idea.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does convey that each asset has a level and change, but it does not explicitly state behavior such as whether it is a read-only snapshot, how current the data is, or what 'wider' means in terms of coverage limits.
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 compact sentences with no filler. The core definition is front-loaded and the comparison with market_tape is valuable, not redundant.
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 parameterless board tool with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it names the asset classes and fields and positions the tool relative to a close sibling. Minor gaps like ordering or exact market coverage are not critical.
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 the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific information, but none is needed.
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 defines the tool as a cross-asset board covering indices, rates, commodities, and currencies with levels and changes. It names the sibling market_tape and explains the relationship, though it lacks an explicit action verb like 'displays' or 'returns'.
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?
It gives practical context by contrasting with market_tape: index_board is wider, while market_tape is a condensed strip. This helps an agent choose between the two, though it does not enumerate broader exclusions or alternative tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.