Skip to main content
Glama

equibles

by io.github.daniel3303

CFTC Futures Positioning (COT)

GetCftcPositioning
Read-only

Get Commitments of Traders (COT) positioning data for a specific futures contract. Shows commercial and non-commercial positions over time. Values are contract counts from the legacy futures-only COT report (positions as of each Tuesday, published Friday). Use SearchCftcMarkets to find available market codes.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
endDateNoEnd date in YYYY-MM-DD format (defaults to latest available)
startDateNoStart date in YYYY-MM-DD format (defaults to 1 year ago)
marketCodeYesCFTC market code, common contract name, or standard futures symbol (e.g., 067651, WTI, ES, Gold futures)
maxResultsNoMaximum number of reports to return (default: 52, max: 500). When the range holds more reports the newest are kept; rows are always listed oldest to newest.

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context about the data source (legacy futures-only COT report), the reporting schedule (as of Tuesday, published Friday), and that values are contract counts, enhancing expectations beyond annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise, three sentences, with the purpose front-loaded in the first sentence. Every sentence adds value—purpose, data characteristics, and a pointer to a related tool—with no unnecessary words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the absence of an output schema, the description conveys the essential output characteristics (positions over time, contract counts, futures-only report). It could more explicitly describe the response format or number of reports returned, but the provided context is largely sufficient for a capable agent.

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?

The schema descriptions cover all four parameters with 100% coverage, so the description adds little beyond the structured data. It does suggest using SearchCftcMarkets to obtain marketCode values, which is a minor useful hint, but this aligns with the baseline 3.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves COT positioning data for a specific futures contract and explains it shows commercial and non-commercial positions over time. It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling GetLatestCftcData, but the purpose is specific and unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides clear context for when to use this tool (historical COT positions for a specific contract) and explicitly directs users to SearchCftcMarkets for finding market codes. No exclusions are stated, but the intended use case is evident.

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

All equibles toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, with detailed descriptions that cross-reference related alternatives. A few near-duplicate names could cause misselection, notably SearchDocument versus SearchDocuments and GetCftcPositioning versus GetLatestCftcPositioning.

Naming Consistency5/5

Tool names consistently follow a VerbNoun camelCase pattern: Get for retrievals, Search for discovery, List/Read for document access, and Add/Close/Remove/Update/Watch/Create/Delete for portfolio mutations. Despite the large count, there is no mixing of naming conventions or unpredictable verb styles.

Tool Count1/5

108 tools is an extreme surface area, far beyond the 3-15 well-scoped range and well past the 25+ threshold. Even for a broad financial data platform, this creates a heavy selection burden and substantial context overhead for agents.

Completeness4/5

The server covers an unusually wide domain: prices, fundamentals, SEC filings, options, insider activity, 13F holdings, short interest, macro data, funds, IPOs, and full portfolio lifecycle management. Notable gaps remain, such as a basic company profile/ticker-resolution tool, dividend history, and analyst estimates, so it is not a perfect 5.

Resources