Silicon Analysts

get_hbm_market_data

Read-onlyIdempotent

Returns 10 HBM market sub-tables: accelerators, specs, marketShare, spotPrices (RETIRED 2026-07-28 — frozen), leadingIndicators, qualificationFeed, revenueForecast, supplierRevenue, validationChecks, bitDemand. Optional table parameter narrows to a single sub-table; omitting returns all 10.

USE THIS for: HBM3/3e/4 generation specs, SK Hynix/Samsung/Micron market share, derived HBM bit demand by SKU class and customer type (bitDemand, EB ranges, monthly).

spotPrices is a RETIRED series: no public HBM spot market exists in any generation — HBM sells via annual/multi-year LTAs. Its rows are frozen estimates served for the record with per-row retired marking; for current, sourced HBM pricing use get_market_dataset with dataset='hbm-pricing'.

bitDemand is NOT a workload split — it is a SKU-class/customer-type cut. Dominant HBM SKUs are dual-use, so a training-vs-inference HBM attribution would be dishonest; no public source publishes one.

DO NOT USE for: HBM price history or current HBM pricing (use get_market_dataset dataset='hbm-pricing'); per-accelerator HBM cost in a specific chip (use get_accelerator_costs.costBreakdown.hbmCostUsd); HBM cost in a hypothetical chip cost calc (use calculate_chip_cost with hbmStacks/hbmCost).

Returns INTERNAL_ERROR if the upstream Supabase HBM tables are unreachable. Research tables refresh Mon/Wed/Fri; bitDemand refreshes monthly (1st); spotPrices is frozen (retired 2026-07-28) and does not refresh.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`table`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

Changed1 schema field changedJul 5, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / table / enum

Previous value: -[
-  "accelerators",
-  "specs",
-  "marketShare",
-  "spotPrices",
-  "leadingIndicators",
-  "qualificationFeed",
-  "revenueForecast",
-  "supplierRevenue",
-  "validationChecks"
-]New value: +[
+  "accelerators",
+  "specs",
+  "marketShare",
+  "spotPrices",
+  "leadingIndicators",
+  "qualificationFeed",
+  "revenueForecast",
+  "supplierRevenue",
+  "validationChecks",
+  "bitDemand"
+]

First observedMay 31, 2026

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already mark the tool read-only and idempotent, and the description adds substantial behavioral context: spotPrices is retired/frozen, tables refresh Mon/Wed/Fri, bitDemand refreshes monthly, spotPrices never refreshes, and INTERNAL_ERROR is returned when upstream Supabase tables are unreachable. No contradiction with annotations exists.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is long but dense: the sub-table list is front-loaded, followed by explicit usage and non-usage guidance and refresh/error behavior. Every sentence carries routing or behavioral information, but the length is at the high end for what could be said more compactly.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a read-only data retrieval tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description supplies enough information to select, invoke, and interpret the tool correctly. It covers the full return set, parameter behavior, retirement status, refresh cadence, and error conditions, leaving no critical gap.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The single `table` parameter is fully covered by the description: it is optional, omitting it returns all 10 sub-tables, and special semantics for `spotPrices` and `bitDemand` are explained. The schema provides only the enum list, so the description adds meaningful behavior beyond the schema, though it does not elaborate on every individual sub-table's contents.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description begins with a specific verb and resource: it returns 10 named HBM market sub-tables, and the optional table parameter narrows to one. It further distinguishes the tool from siblings by explicitly stating what it is for and what it is not for.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides explicit 'USE THIS for' and 'DO NOT USE for' sections with named alternatives such as get_market_dataset, get_accelerator_costs, and calculate_chip_cost. An agent can determine exactly when to invoke this tool versus its siblings without ambiguity.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Silicon Analysts tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Disambiguation3/5

Several tools overlap in domain and purpose, such as get_market_pulse vs get_market_intelligence and get_wafer_pricing vs get_foundry_economics. The detailed USE/DO NOT USE sections help, but the tool names alone do not always make the distinction obvious, requiring careful reading to avoid misselection.

Naming Consistency4/5

18 of 20 tools follow a consistent get_<noun> pattern, with calculate_chip_cost and estimate_lead_time as minor deviations. No chaotic mixing of camelCase or inconsistent verb styles; the overall scheme is predictable and readable.

Tool Count4/5

20 tools is slightly above the ideal 3-15 range but reasonable for the server's broad scope covering cost modeling, capacity, allocation, HBM, policy, and market intelligence. Each tool has a distinct niche, though a few could potentially be consolidated.

Completeness4/5

The server provides comprehensive coverage of semiconductor cost estimation, market data, fab capacity, allocation, HBM qualification, and policy timelines. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no dedicated memory pricing tool or general search), but these are covered through get_market_dataset and other tools; there are no critical missing functions for the stated domain.

Resources

Need Help?