get_prices
Get daily price history for a ticker.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| period | No | 1y | |
| ticker | Yes |
Output Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Rockmoon Financial Data
by ai.rockmoon
TDQS
C2.4/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits. It is too brief and does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, what data is returned, or any restrictions. This is insufficient for a tool with 2 parameters.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While very concise (one sentence), it is under-specified. Every sentence should earn its place, but here the single sentence is too vague to be useful. The structure does not front-load critical details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 2 parameters (one required) and no schema descriptions, the description is incomplete. It does not explain input formats or the scope of the price history. The presence of an output schema does not excuse the lack of parameter guidance.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning beyond parameter names. The 'period' parameter with default '1y' is not explained, and 'ticker' has no additional context. The description fails to compensate for the missing schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get daily price history for a ticker' clearly states the action (get) and resource (daily price history for a ticker). It distinguishes from siblings like get_metrics_history which might cover other metrics. However, it could be more specific about time granularity or source.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no exclusions or context about suitable scenarios, leaving the agent to guess.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
B3.2/5.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct financial data aspect (e.g., balance sheet vs income statement vs cash flow; different holding types; metrics vs history). No overlapping purposes.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow verb_noun pattern with snake_case (e.g., get_balance_sheet, compare_metrics). Consistent and predictable.
Tool Count4/5
19 tools is slightly above the typical 3-15 range but covers a broad domain (statements, metrics, holdings, screening). Still reasonable and well-scoped.
Completeness4/5
Covers most key financial data needs: statements, metrics, insider trades, institutional holdings, screen/search. Minor gaps like earnings estimates or dividend history are absent but core workflows are complete.