get_time_infoRetrieve current time in ISO format and Unix timestamp, plus identify the most recent trading day for market context.
Get current time with ISO format, timestamp, and the last trading day.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.2Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseDoes the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral transparency. It mentions what it returns (ISO format, timestamp, last trading day) but provides no detail on what the ISO format means, how 'last trading day' is calculated, whether it's market-specific, or any timezone assumptions. The agent lacks critical context about the behavior of this tool.
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 concise, a single sentence that lists the key outputs. It is efficient and front-loaded with the purpose. Could be considered slightly terse, but for a no-parameter tool, it is appropriate. No fluff or 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?
The tool has no parameters and an output schema exists (per context signals), so the description does not need to detail return values in depth. However, since there are no annotations, the description could add more context about timezone handling, the definition of 'last trading day', and whether it reflects market-specific calendar. The description is minimally complete but leaves some behavioral gaps.
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 there are no parameters to document. The description explains the return values (ISO time, timestamp, last trading day), which adds meaning about what the tool provides. Since there are no parameters, the baseline of 4 is appropriate because the description effectively explains what the tool gives.
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?
Description states a clear purpose: get current time with ISO format, timestamp, and last trading day. The verb 'get' and resource 'time info' are specific. It distinguishes from siblings because no other sibling tool deals with time/calendar info, though it doesn't explicitly mention that it's the only one providing time information. Overall, it's clear enough.
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 it: when you need current time in ISO format, timestamp, or last trading day. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. Given that siblings are all market data tools, a simple need for time info would route here. No explicit exclusions, but not fully explicit about when not to use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.