Get a complete market snapshot for any US-listed symbol: price, change, bid/ask, day and 52-week ranges, volume, market cap, valuation multiples, beta, EPS, and analyst targets.
Full quote for one US-listed symbol: price and change, bid/ask, day and 52-week ranges, volume, market cap, valuation multiples, beta, EPS and analyst targets.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| symbol | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly conveys that this is a read operation returning a snapshot of quote data, but it does not disclose data timeliness, market data source, or any restrictions beyond 'US-listed'.
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 with a colon followed by a compact field list. Every word earns its place, and there is no repetition of the schema or tool name.
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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately communicates the main purpose and the expected data contents. It lacks explicit usage guidance and output format details, but the field list is sufficient for an agent to determine whether this tool fits the task.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds the useful constraint that the symbol must be 'US-listed', but it does not provide a ticker format example or clarify casing/exchange suffix handling.
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 identifies a specific resource (one US-listed symbol) and a concrete verb ('quote'), then enumerates the data fields returned. It is easy for an agent to infer this is the single-symbol quote tool, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the similarly named sibling 'quotes'.
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 phrase 'Full quote for one US-listed symbol' implies when this tool is appropriate, but it gives no explicit guidance about when to prefer alternatives such as 'quotes', 'key_stats', or 'analyst_view'. There are no stated exclusions or sibling comparisons.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.