schwab-mcp

schwab_get_brokerage_transactions

Get transaction history for the active Schwab account.

Returns one markdown row per transaction:

[] | x | x ... | Net: $

Symbols come from the transaction's transferItems collection (one item per leg, e.g. equity bought + cash debit), with the per-leg amount as quantity. When no transferItems have symbols, the row falls back to the transaction's description text in place of the symbol list.

Date-window default — when from_date and to_date are both blank, the tool defaults to the last 30 days (in UTC). Pass both or neither.

Schwab's transaction type enum (values you can pass to transaction_types): TRADE, RECEIVE_AND_DELIVER, DIVIDEND_OR_INTEREST, ACH_RECEIPT, ACH_DISBURSEMENT, CASH_RECEIPT, CASH_DISBURSEMENT, ELECTRONIC_FUND, WIRE_OUT, WIRE_IN, JOURNAL, MEMORANDUM, MARGIN_CALL, MONEY_MARKET, SMA_ADJUSTMENT. Empty string = all types.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`npub`	No	Required. Your Nostr public key (npub1...) for credit billing.
`to_date`	No	End of window, ISO 8601. Empty string defaults to now.
`from_date`	No	Start of window, ISO 8601 (e.g. "2026-04-01T00:00:00.000Z"). Empty string defaults to 30 days ago.
`dpop_token`	No
`transaction_types`	No	Comma-separated Schwab transaction-type values. Empty string = all types.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedJul 16, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description provides substantial behavioral detail: output format (markdown rows), fallback behavior for missing symbols, date window defaults, and the list of valid transaction type enum values. It does not disclose authentication or error handling, but overall is comprehensive.

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 well-structured with bullet points and clear sections. Every sentence adds value, no fluff. It efficiently conveys output format, defaults, and the enum list.

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 tool's complexity (5 params, output schema exists), the description covers output format, date behavior, and transaction types adequately. It does not mention error scenarios or authentication, but for a data retrieval tool, it is sufficiently complete.

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?

Schema coverage is 80%, and the description adds value by explaining date defaults and listing the full set of transaction type enum values, which are not in the schema. It clarifies behavior for blank dates, enhancing parameter understanding.

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 gets transaction history for the active Schwab account and provides detailed output format. It distinguishes from sibling tools like schwab_get_brokerage_balances or schwab_get_brokerage_positions by focusing on transactions.

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 explains the default date range and transaction types parameter but does not explicitly contrast with schwab_get_brokerage_transaction (singular) or mention when not to use this tool. It covers the when-to-use aspect well.

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

All schwab-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.