schwab-mcp

schwab_mint_coupon

Create a new operator-owned discount coupon.

The coupon owns its binding: tool_ids names the tools it discounts, and re-pricing a tool never touches it. A coupon bound to no tool discounts nothing, however many patrons redeem it.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	Yes	The catchy code patrons type to redeem (operator-scoped uniqueness).
`tool_ids`	No	The tools this coupon discounts — tool ids or MCP tool names, or ``["*"]`` for every tool priced above zero.
`dpop_token`	No
`total_uses`	No	Aggregate cap across all patrons (default None = unlimited).
`valid_from`	Yes	ISO-8601 datetime when the coupon becomes active.
`valid_until`	Yes	ISO-8601 datetime when the coupon expires.
`uses_per_patron`	No	How many tool calls one patron can claim the discount on (default 1; pass null/None for unlimited within the window).
`discount_percent`	Yes	Percentage off the base price (0-100).

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 8, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / tool_ids

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "items": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "description": "The tools this coupon discounts — tool ids or MCP\ntool names, or ``[\"*\"]`` for every tool priced above zero."
+}

First observedJul 16, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose a real behavioral trait: the coupon owns its binding, so re-pricing a tool doesn't alter it, and an unbound coupon discounts nothing. It still omits permission/auth requirements, whether creation is reversible, and side effects, leaving meaningful gaps for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

Three short sentences with no filler; the core purpose is front-loaded and the binding mechanics follow. Slightly less than maximal because the second and third sentences could be tightened into one without losing meaning.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the binding commentary covers a subtle correctness point. For an unannotated mutation tool, however, missing auth/permission context and side-effect disclosure keep it at minimum-viable completeness.

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 88%, so the schema already documents nearly every parameter (name, tool_ids, total_uses, uses_per_patron, validity windows). The description reinforces the tool_ids binding semantics and empty-binding behavior, which adds real meaning, but adds little to the other six parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create a new operator-owned discount coupon'), which is clear against siblings like update_coupon, delete_coupon, and redeem_coupon. However it doesn't explicitly name those siblings or the boundary between minting and updating a coupon, so differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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?

Conveys that this is the operator-facing creation path ('operator-owned') versus the patron-facing redeem_coupon, and the binding note hints at configuration intent. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance relative to update_coupon or a precondition like needing operator credentials.

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.