Skip to main content
Glama

HSH Data-on-Demand

by io.github.hshintelligence

hsh-mena-intel

MENA (Gulf) market intelligence for trading agents. Combines the signals that actually drive Gulf markets: OIL (Brent + WTI, latest price + 30-day trend + derived Gulf-equity impact — oil is the dominant Gulf market driver), SOVEREIGN MACRO (GDP growth, inflation, GDP size per country from World Bank), USD-PEG stability (Gulf currencies are USD-pegged — a key FX-risk signal), and live MENA EQUITY pricing (price + 52-week positioning for major Gulf stocks like Aramco, Emaar, QNB, Al Rajhi). For SAUDI specifically, adds official Tadawul market data via the SAHMK API: TASI index level, market breadth (advancers/decliners), market mood, and rich per-stock quotes (OHLC, bid/ask, volume). Note: deep Gulf company financials are license-walled (no SEC/NSE-style free disclosure); this delivers the genuinely-free market-level intel. Pass a country code and optional Gulf ticker. Pay per call via x402 (USDC on Base).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tickerNoOptional Gulf equity ticker, e.g. 2222.SR (Aramco), EMAAR.AE, QNBK.QA, 1120.SR (Al Rajhi).
countryNoGulf country code: SA, AE, QA, KW, BH, OM, EG.

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses cost (Pay per call via x402), data sources, and limitations (deep financials not available). However, it lacks details on authentication, rate limits, or any side effects of queries.

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 description is relatively long but well-structured: it starts with a clear one-line summary, then breaks down the data components. Every sentence adds value, but it could be slightly more concise without losing information.

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 does a good job of explaining the output structure (oil prices, macro data, equity prices, etc.) and limitations. It is comprehensive for a tool with only two optional parameters.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Although the schema already covers both parameters with descriptions, the tool description adds significant context by explaining how the country and ticker influence the output (e.g., Saudi adds Tadawul data) and providing concrete examples of ticker formats.

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?

The description clearly identifies the tool as providing MENA (Gulf) market intelligence for trading agents, with specific data points (oil, macro, USD-peg, equities) and a mention of Saudi-specific Tadawul data. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like hsh-crypto-intel or hsh-company-intelligence.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description explains to pass a country code and optional ticker, and notes that for Saudi data, Tadawul API is used. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it provide exclusion criteria or prerequisites.

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

All HSH Data-on-Demand 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

B3.3/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have distinct purposes, but some closely related tools (e.g., hsh-b2b-*, hsh-esg-* variants) could cause confusion. Descriptions help differentiate, but an agent might still misselect similar products.

Naming Consistency3/5

Naming convention is mixed: some tools use hyphens (hsh-b2b-contact), others use underscores (hsh_broker_data_request). While mostly readable, the inconsistency could be confusing for agents expecting a uniform pattern.

Tool Count3/5

32 tools is on the high side for a single server, but given its purpose as a data marketplace, the large number reflects a wide catalog. However, it may be overwhelming for agents to navigate.

Completeness3/5

Covers many data domains but has obvious gaps (e.g., weather, social media). The inclusion of custom data request tools (hsh_describe_data_need, hsh_broker_data_request) mitigates these gaps, allowing agents to request missing data.

Resources