trading-signals-mcp

VWAP + Bands

vwap_bands

Read-only

VWAP with standard-deviation bands from your OHLCV bars (session-anchored or full), z-score and band position. Works with no key (small daily allowance) or with a Trading Signals Toolkit API key (free 100 calls/month, Starter, Pro). Pay-per-call equivalent: $0.005 USDC over x402. Informational only, not investment advice.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "bars": "<bars>"
    },
    "name": "vwap_bands"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`tz`	No	IANA timezone for sessions (default America/New_York)
`bars`	Yes	OHLCV bars, oldest first: {t (ISO-8601 or epoch s/ms), o, h, l, c, v} or [t,o,h,l,c,v]. Max 5000.
`bands`	No	Band multipliers, default [1, 2]
`anchor`	No	session (reset each tz date, default) or all
`includeSeries`	No	Return the last 500 VWAP points

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 11, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only and non-destructive behavior, and the description adds useful access details: no-key allowance, API-key tiers, and pay-per-call pricing. It also includes an informational-only disclaimer. It does not describe output shape or error behavior in depth, but it adds meaningful context beyond the annotations.

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?

The purpose is front-loaded and clear, and the pricing/access details are compact. The disclaimer is appropriate but the description is slightly dense with commercial details. Overall it is well structured with little wasted wording.

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?

The tool has five parameters, full schema coverage, and rich annotations, so the description does not need to repeat parameter details. It sufficiently explains the computation and access model. Because there is no output schema, it could be slightly more explicit about return values, but it names the key outputs.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the five parameters in detail. The description reinforces session-anchored versus full mode and mentions z-score and band position, but it adds little parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema coverage is high.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: compute VWAP with standard-deviation bands, z-score, and band position from OHLCV bars. It also states session-anchored versus full modes. It does not explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools such as atr_stop or opening_range, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

The description explains access options (no key, API key, x402 payment) but does not say when an agent should choose this tool instead of sibling analysis tools. There are no explicit use-case conditions, exclusions, or alternatives named.

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

All trading-signals-mcp tools Inspect

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.