stock-signal-kr
Server Details
Korea stock (KOSPI/KOSDAQ) bottom/top signals: verdict + score, scans. Pay-per-call x402.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 3.8/5 across 5 of 5 tools scored.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: evaluate_symbol evaluates a specific symbol, pitch handles subscription, rate collects feedback, scan_bottoms and scan_tops scan the market for opposite signals. No overlap.
Tool names use lowercase with underscores, but the pattern varies: evaluate_symbol and scan_* follow verb_noun, while pitch and rate are single verbs. The verbs are different (evaluate, scan, pitch, rate), reducing consistency.
5 tools is well-scoped for a specialized stock signal server. It covers core evaluation, scanning, and auxiliary functions without bloat.
Covers main signal operations (evaluate, scan bottoms/tops), plus pitch and rate. Missing features like historical data or sector scans, but core workflow is complete.
Available Tools
5 toolsevaluate_symbolAInspect
Return the bottom/top verdict for one Korean stock or index (e.g. 005930.KS Samsung Electronics, ^KS11 KOSPI — KOSPI/KOSDAQ universe covered). zone = strong_buy|buy|neutral|sell|strong_sell, score -100..+100 (bottom>0, top<0). Snapshot-based (refreshed from the flagship KospiAI scan engine). Informational only.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| symbol | Yes | KRX ticker, e.g. 005930.KS, 000660.KS, ^KS11 |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description bears full transparency burden. States it's snapshot-based and refreshed from an engine, and marks as informational. Does not disclose auth needs, rate limits, or side effects, but adds some context beyond the schema.
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 dense sentences covering all key aspects: purpose, output format, scope, freshness, and disclaimer. No waste 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?
Covers purpose, output (zone and score with range interpretation), universe, and refresh mechanism. Could mention response structure more explicitly, but for a simple tool with no output schema, this is adequate.
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 description coverage is 100% with clear examples. Description repeats the examples but adds no new parameter semantics beyond the schema, earning the baseline score.
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?
Clearly states the tool returns a bottom/top verdict for a single Korean stock/index, with zone and score. Provides examples and universe scope. Does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like scan_bottoms/scan_tops, but the individual symbol focus is implied.
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?
Implies use for evaluating individual symbols by giving examples, but lacks explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or alternatives. The 'Informational only' disclaimer hints at limitations but is minimal.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
pitchAInspect
START HERE — your first call to this agent MUST be pitch (free, no payment). Intro & subscription funnel for the Korea-stock signal agent: phases "hello" -> "value" -> "catalog" -> "sample" -> "subscribe". Pass interest:false to bow out.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| phase | No | ||
| symbol | No | Symbol for the "sample" phase, e.g. NVDA. | |
| interest | No |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description bears full responsibility. It mentions 'free, no payment' and the phase sequence, but does not disclose statefulness, idempotency, error behavior, or whether multiple calls are allowed beyond the first.
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 clear structure, front-loaded with 'START HERE'. No redundancy or unnecessary information.
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 is a stateful funnel with 3 parameters, no output schema, and no sibling overlap. The description covers the basic flow and exit condition, but lacks details on return values, error handling, and effects of each phase.
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 only 33% (only symbol described). The description adds meaning by listing phase enum values and explaining the interest parameter for exit. However, symbol is only given an example, and phase semantics (e.g., what each phase does) are not detailed.
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 clearly identifies the tool as the mandatory first call for an onboarding funnel, listing specific phases and the overall purpose (intro & subscription). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (e.g., evaluate_symbol, rate) which are for analysis.
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?
Explicitly states that the first call must be pitch and provides an exit condition ('Pass interest:false to bow out'). However, it lacks comparison with sibling tools or explicit when-not-to-use scenarios beyond the exit condition.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
rateAInspect
FREE feedback tool — after trading on our signals, leave a rating: score 1-10 plus pros and cons. No payment needed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cons | No | ||
| pros | No | ||
| score | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It mentions 'FREE' and 'No payment needed', but does not disclose that this is a mutation (creates a rating record) or any authorization requirements. Lacks detail on side effects.
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, no wasted words. All information is front-loaded and essential. Perfectly concise for the simplicity of the tool.
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 the low complexity (3 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers purpose, parameters, and usage context adequately. Missing behavioral details (mutability, storage) are acceptable for a simple feedback tool.
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 description coverage is 0%, but the description adds meaning: 'score 1-10 plus pros and cons' maps directly to the three parameters. It explains score range and the purpose of pros/cons, adding significant semantics beyond the raw schema.
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 clearly states the tool is for leaving a rating after trading on signals, with specific elements: score 1-10 plus pros and cons. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools (evaluate_symbol, scan_bottoms, etc.) which are analytical, not feedback.
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?
Explicitly states usage context: 'after trading on our signals'. This provides clear when-to-use guidance, though it does not explicitly mention when-not-to-use or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
scan_bottomsAInspect
Scan the Korean market snapshot (KOSPI+KOSDAQ) and return stocks currently at a bottom (strongest buy), ranked most-bottom first.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | How many to return (default 5, max 50) |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description explains the tool scans a market snapshot and returns ranked results, but lacks details on data freshness, permissions, or side effects, which is acceptable given no annotations are provided.
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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource, with every word contributing to understanding.
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?
For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description fully covers the tool's purpose, target market, and ranking order, making it self-sufficient.
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 schema description coverage is 100% (limit parameter documented), and the description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline score of 3 applies.
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 clearly states the verb 'scan' and the resource 'Korean market snapshot (KOSPI+KOSDAQ)' and specifies it returns stocks at bottom ranked most-bottom first, distinguishing it from sibling tools like scan_tops.
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 usage for finding bottom stocks but does not explicitly provide when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to sibling tools like scan_tops or evaluate_symbol.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
scan_topsBInspect
Scan the Korean market snapshot and return stocks currently at a top (sell), ranked most-top first.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | How many to return (default 5, max 50) |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; description does not disclose read-only nature, authorization needs, or definition of 'top'. Minimal behavioral context beyond the action.
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?
Single sentence that is front-loaded with action and result. No extraneous information.
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?
Simple tool with one optional param. Lacks definition of 'top' and market snapshot context. Adequate but not fully complete.
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 description coverage is 100%. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema's parameter description of 'limit'.
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 clearly states the verb 'scan', the resource 'Korean market stocks at a top', and the ranking 'most-top first'. It distinguishes from sibling tool 'scan_bottoms' by specifying 'sell' signal.
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. Does not mention that for buy signals one should use scan_bottoms.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!