Full trading day of intraday bars for one US stock (interval 3-240 min, default 3m). Every bar carries absolute open/high/low/close plus pct_open/pct_high/pct_low/pct_close (fractional change from that day's open), volume and transactions. $0.025 USDC.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| date | Yes | YYYY-MM-DD | |
| ticker | Yes | Stock ticker (e.g. AAPL) | |
| interval | No | Bar interval in minutes: 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 30, 60, or 240 (default 3) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses return fields (open/high/low/close, percentage changes, volume, transactions) and cost ($0.025 USDC). No annotations exist, so this provides useful behavioral context. Does not cover error handling or access requirements.
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 concise sentences: first states purpose and interval, second details output and cost. No fluff; information is front-loaded and efficient.
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?
No output schema exists, but description explains return values with field names. Covers enough for a simple data retrieval tool; lacks pagination/limit info but is sufficient for basic use.
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 100%, so the schema already documents parameters. The description adds minor clarification (interval units, default), but largely repeats schema info. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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?
Clear purpose: retrieves intraday minute bars for a single US stock over a full trading day. The interval range (3-240 min) and default are specified, distinguishing it from daily or range tools among siblings.
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 vs. alternatives like get_bars or query_range. The description implies it's for intraday data but doesn't state exclusions or prerequisites.
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.
Most tools have distinct purposes, but there is some overlap among bar-related tools (get_bars, query_minute_bars, query_range, query_daily). Descriptions are detailed enough to differentiate, but an agent might need to carefully choose the right bar tool.
Naming follows a consistent verb_noun pattern (get_*, query_*, scan_*). The only minor deviation is list_tickers instead of get_tickers, but it's still predictable.
15 tools is well-scoped for a market data API covering prices, fundamentals, filings, insiders, and screening. Each tool serves a clear purpose without being excessive.
The tool set covers a comprehensive range of market data needs: intraday/daily bars, fundamentals, SEC filings, insider transactions, company profiles, and screening. Notable missing features like options data are beyond the stated scope.