Skip to main content
Glama

schwab-mcp

by io.github.lonniev
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

schwab_account_statement_infographic

Generate a visual SVG infographic of your account statement.

Returns the same data as account_statement, rendered as a dark-themed SVG graphic with balance hero, metrics cards, health gauge, tranche table, and tool usage breakdown. Costs 1 api_sat per call. Proof is verified by debit_or_deny before any cost is incurred.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
daysNoNumber of days of daily usage history to include (default 30).
npubYesThe Nostr public key (npub1...) whose statement to render.
dpop_tokenYesRaw JSON of a kind-27235 Nostr event signed by npub — not base64, not NIP-98 'Authorization: Nostr <b64>' framing. Its `u` tag must hold THIS tool's exact name (from tools/list), not the endpoint URL; content:"", created_at within 60s of now, and a random `nonce` tag recommended. Or a cached dpop_token phrase.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / dpop_token / description
      Previous value: -"A kind-27235 Nostr event signed by npub for this tool."New value: +"Raw JSON of a kind-27235 Nostr event signed by npub —\nnot base64, not NIP-98 'Authorization: Nostr <b64>' framing. Its\n`u` tag must hold THIS tool's exact name (from tools/list), not\nthe endpoint URL; content:\"\", created_at within 60s of now, and a\nrandom `nonce` tag recommended. Or a cached dpop_token phrase."
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully covers behavioral traits: it generates an SVG, costs 1 api_sat, and has proof verification before cost. It also lists visual components, providing good transparency beyond the schema.

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 extremely concise (two sentences) with no wasted words. It front-loads the main purpose and then adds key details about output, cost, and verification in an efficient manner.

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 output schema exists and the description links to the sibling account_statement tool, it provides sufficient context. It covers what the tool returns (components), cost, and verification. Minor gaps in error handling are offset by the explicit connection to related tools.

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 100% and the schema already describes each parameter adequately. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states the tool generates a visual SVG infographic of an account statement. It specifies the output format and distinguishes from the sibling 'account_statement' by noting it returns the same data rendered as a dark-themed SVG with specific components.

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 implies usage for visual infographics versus raw data from account_statement, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions cost and proof verification, but no clear guidance on selection criteria.

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

All schwab-mcp 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