get_historyDaily close record for one date (rank, % move, breadth per sector; close ranks only before 2026-07-31), or the 5-minute intraday rows with intraday=true. Daily from 2026-07-21, intraday from 2026-08-19, never backfilled. Requires a Sector API key.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| date | Yes | YYYY-MM-DD, ET trading day | |
| intraday | No | true = 5-minute rows instead of the daily close |
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 carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does so well by noting that close ranks exist only before 2026-07-31, daily data starts 2026-07-21, intraday data starts 2026-08-19, data is never backfilled, and a Sector API key is required. This is substantive context beyond a basic read operation.
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 compact and information-dense, with the primary use case front-loaded and no filler. Every sentence adds useful detail, including data availability, backfill behavior, and authentication requirements.
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 description covers the main output types, availability windows, and authentication needs, which is strong given there is no output schema. The daily output fields are described, but the intraday row structure is left vague. Still, the description is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly in most 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents the date format and the meaning of intraday. The description mostly restates the intraday behavior rather than adding new parameter-specific detail. It does clarify the output context around the parameters, but not enough to raise the score above baseline.
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 returns a daily close record for one date, including rank, % move, and breadth per sector, or 5-minute intraday rows when intraday=true. It is specific about the resource and behavior, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling tools get_roster and get_sectors.
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 gives clear context on when to use this tool: for sector history on a single date, either daily close data or 5-minute intraday data. It also specifies availability start dates and the backfill policy, which helps set expectations. However, it does not explicitly state when to use a sibling tool instead.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.