Skip to main content
Glama

TipRanks

by com.tipranks
OverviewDiscussions(1)Admin

get_forex_historical

Read-onlyIdempotent

Daily OHLC price history for a forex pair, covering the whole date range you ask for.

Chart-ready: while the range fits in one response, each row is the price feed's
own daily row — {symbol, date, open, high, low, close, volume, change,
changePercent, vwap} — newest first, ordered for direct plotting as an exchange-rate history.

A range too long to return day by day is aggregated into coarser OHLC bars
rather than cut short. `interval` names which (weekly/monthly/quarterly/yearly),
each bar spans `date` to `endDate`, and a bar's high/low are that period's real
extremes. Aggregated bars carry the same fields except `vwap`, which the feed
defines per session only. Re-request a narrower from_date/to_date for daily rows.

`summary` always describes the FULL requested window, computed from the daily
data: its first and last close with dates, its high and low with dates, and the
trailing changes the window reaches back far enough to support. Base any
"starting rate", "a year ago" or "period high/low" claim on `summary`, or on a
bar that is actually present.

`summary.windowHigh`/`windowLow` describe THIS window. A quote tool's
yearHigh/yearLow are the feed's trailing range, roughly the past 12-13
months — a different period — so label those as trailing-year figures. For the current level alone, call get_forex_quote.

`volume` on a forex row is a per-venue tick count, not market turnover — FX is
over-the-counter. Read it as a liquidity hint at best.

Args:
    symbol: Forex pair symbol (e.g. 'EURUSD')
    from_date: Start date YYYY-MM-DD (optional)
    to_date: End date YYYY-MM-DD (optional)

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
symbolYesForex pair, uppercase with no slash, e.g. 'EURUSD'.
to_dateNo
from_dateNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -{
-  "properties": {
-    "result": {
-      "title": "Result",
-      "type": "string"
-    }
-  },
-  "required": [
-    "result"
-  ],
-  "title": "get_forex_historicalOutput",
-  "type": "object"
-}New value: +null
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds substantial context beyond them: automatic aggregation into coarser bars for long ranges, that aggregated bars drop `vwap`, that rows are newest-first, and that `volume` is a per-venue tick count rather than market turnover. It also clarifies the semantics of summary.windowHigh/windowLow versus a quote tool's trailing-year figure.

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?

Front-loads the core purpose and is organized into digestible paragraphs, most of which (volume caveat, summary semantics, aggregation behavior) earn their place. It is somewhat verbose for a 3-parameter tool, and references to the non-existent `interval` arg add noise.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the full burden of describing returns, and it does so thoroughly: enumerates the row fields, explains the summary block, describes aggregated-bar fields, and gives plotting intent. An agent has everything needed to call and interpret it.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is only 33% (only `symbol` is described in the schema), so the description must compensate, and it partially does by giving the date format (YYYY-MM-DD) and marking from/to as optional. However it never explains the empty-string default or what omitting a date returns, and it confusingly discusses an `interval` field that is not an input parameter.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource+scope: 'Daily OHLC price history for a forex pair, covering the whole date range you ask for.' It explicitly separates itself from the sibling get_forex_quote ('For the current level alone, call get_forex_quote'), so an agent can route without opening a schema.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use guidance (historical range vs 'current level alone') and names the alternative tool get_forex_quote. It also tells the agent what to do when a range is too long ('Re-request a narrower from_date/to_date for daily rows') and which source to base derived claims on.

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

All TipRanks toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources