Lists every market in the current stock screen publish, including each market's data date, status, and published features.
Markets in the current publish, with each one's data date, status and published features.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the vague scope 'current publish'; it says nothing about pagination, filtering, data freshness guarantees, or what 'published features' actually means.
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?
It is a single short sentence with no filler, which is appropriately sized for a zero-parameter list tool. It reads as a fragment rather than a front-loaded statement of purpose, which slightly weakens the structure.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. Still, for a tool whose sibling set contains a directly overlapping market_overview, the description omits the routing information an agent needs to choose correctly.
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 takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. Nothing in the description is needed to disambiguate inputs, and no misleading parameter claims are made.
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 names the resource (markets) and scopes it to the 'current publish', and lists the fields surfaced (data date, status, published features). However it is a noun phrase with no verb and gives no differentiation from siblings like market_overview or list_screens, leaving the agent to infer that this is a listing 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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives such as market_overview, which overlaps heavily with this tool. The agent gets no signal about which sibling to pick.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.