Skip to main content
Glama

Twelvedata

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Splits

splits
Read-onlyIdempotent

Twelve Data historical stock splits for a symbol: ratio, date. Use to adjust historical Twelve Data prices across split events.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
symbolYesTicker/symbol. Stocks e.g. "AAPL", "MSFT"; forex "EUR/USD"; crypto "BTC/USD"; ETFs "SPY"; indices "IXIC". Comma-separate for a batch (e.g. "AAPL,MSFT").
end_dateNoOptional end of range, "YYYY-MM-DD" or "YYYY-MM-DD HH:MM:SS".
exchangeNoOptional exchange filter (e.g. "NASDAQ", "NYSE", "Binance").
start_dateNoOptional start of range, "YYYY-MM-DD" or "YYYY-MM-DD HH:MM:SS".

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
codeNoResponse code
statusNoResponse status
messageNoResponse message

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and no destructive behavior. The description adds that it returns 'ratio, date' and is for price adjustment, which aligns with annotations. No contradictions.

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?

Single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. Every word carries meaning, clearly stating purpose and usage.

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 simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers purpose and usage. Could optionally mention more about output format, but it's sufficient.

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%, so description adds minimal value beyond the schema. It mentions 'ratio, date' in the output context, but for input parameters, the schema already fully describes them. Baseline 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 it provides historical stock splits (ratio, date) and explicitly mentions the use case of adjusting prices across split events. It distinguishes from sibling tools like dividends, earnings, and price.

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 explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool ('Use to adjust historical Twelve Data prices across split events'). It lacks explicit 'when not to use' or alternative tools, but the context is clear enough given the sibling list.

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

All Twelvedata 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

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

While many tools have distinct purposes, there is notable overlap between price, quote, eod, and time_series for price data. Also, the multiple ask_pipeworx variants and deep_research could cause confusion about which to use for factual queries. Some tools like bet_research and polymarket_arbitrage also have overlapping domains.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow a descriptive snake_case pattern (ai_visibility_check, ask_pipeworx, compare_entities). A few are single words (cryptocurrencies, indices, profile) which is acceptable. No mixing of camelCase or other conventions, so consistent overall.

Tool Count2/5

47 tools is quite high for a single server. While the domain is broad (financial data, prediction markets, SEC filings, etc.), many tools are highly specific (e.g., polymarket_arbitrage, bet_research, scan_dependency) and could be consolidated. The count feels bloated and adds cognitive load.

Completeness4/5

The tool set is impressively comprehensive, covering stocks, forex, crypto, economic data, SEC filings, prediction markets, entity resolution, and even claims validation. Minor gaps exist (e.g., limited drug data despite having some tools), but overall the surface supports a wide range of agentic workflows without obvious missing operations.

Resources