Get today's intraday minute-level price data for stocks.
Returns timestamp, price, volume, turnover, and average price per minute.
Supported: US stocks, Hong Kong stocks, A-shares.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| type | No | ||
| symbols | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the burden. It lists returned fields (timestamp, price, volume, turnover, avg price) and supported markets, which helps. However, it omits behavioral aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, or error handling.
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 sentences with a bullet-like structure. First sentence states purpose, second sentence lists fields and markets. No wasted words, front-loaded.
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?
Given no output schema, 2 parameters with no param documentation, and no annotations, the description is insufficient for reliable agent invocation. Missing critical context about parameter semantics and edge cases.
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 coverage is 0% and the description offers no explanation of parameters (symbols, type). The agent cannot infer expected values or constraints from the description alone.
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 uses a specific verb ('Get'), names the resource ('intraday minute-level price data'), and adds scope ('today's'), plus lists supported markets. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like get_kline or get_order_book.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_kline, get_kline_intervals, or get_recent_trades. The usage context is implied but not contrasted with siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct data type or operation (e.g., symbol discovery, capital flow, intraday, kline, order book, trades). No two tools have overlapping purposes, and descriptions clearly differentiate them.
All tools follow a consistent 'get_' prefix followed by a descriptive noun (e.g., get_available_symbols, get_intraday, get_kline). No mixing of conventions or vague verb usage.
13 tools is well-scoped for a market data server. Each tool serves a specific need without unnecessary redundancy, covering discovery, real-time, historical, and reference data.
The tool set covers core market data needs: discovery, real-time quotes, historical kline, depth, trades, capital flow, metrics, trading calendar, and sessions. Minor gaps exist (e.g., corporate actions, historical trade list), but the primary workflows are supported.