Skip to main content
Glama

schwab_get_brokerage_balances

Get the active Schwab account's current balance summary.

Pulls Schwab's account endpoint and returns four bold lines:

Cash Balance: currentBalances.cashBalance Buying Power: currentBalances.buyingPower Net Liquidation: currentBalances.liquidationValue Day P&L: currentBalances.liquidationValue − initialBalances.liquidationValue

Day P&L is the session change in mark-to-market equity (the canonical measure of "how much did I make/lose today"). Schwab's account response does not expose a single "dayProfitLoss" field — the convention is to compute the delta against the start-of-day snapshot.

Two fallback guards apply to Day P&L:

  1. Missing snapshot — if either initialBalances or currentBalances is absent or has a zero liquidationValue, Day P&L reports 0.0 rather than treating zero as the baseline (which would print today's full equity as P&L).

  2. Suspect snapshot — if the computed Day P&L is larger in absolute value than half of current liquidation value (e.g. $17,442 P&L on an $8,847 account), the initialBalances snapshot is treated as stale or partial and Day P&L reports 0.0. A legitimate 50%+ session change is implausible for any normal account; the tool underreports in the rare real-50% case rather than emitting nonsense in the more common stale-snapshot case.

When Day P&L reads $0.00 on a session where you expect a real number, one of those two guards fired. Cross-check against position-level P&L via get_brokerage_positions.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
npubNoRequired. Your Nostr public key (npub1...) for credit billing.
dpop_tokenNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It thoroughly explains the Day P&L computation, fallback guards for missing or suspect snapshots, and the rationale for treating large P&L as stale.

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 well-structured with bold lines and bullet points. While somewhat lengthy, every sentence adds value. The front-loaded summary and clear sections make it easy to parse.

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 presence of an output schema, the description is largely complete, covering return values, fallback logic, and cross-referencing. The only gap is the missing parameter explanation for dpop_token.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema coverage is 50%: only npub has a description in the schema. The tool description does not add any additional meaning for dpop_token, leaving it unexplained. Parameter semantics are insufficient.

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 retrieves the active Schwab account's current balance summary, listing four specific fields. It is distinct from siblings like get_brokerage_positions and get_brokerage_orders, which focus on other aspects.

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?

The description includes an explicit cross-check recommendation for when Day P&L shows $0.00, directing to get_brokerage_positions. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other balance tools like schwab_check_balance.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.