Skip to main content
Glama

mcp-server

by io.github.tickerbot

tickerbot_get_ticker_bars

Get OHLCV (open/high/low/close/volume) bars for one or more symbols at a given interval, oldest-first. Pass a comma-separated ticker list (up to 50) for a bulk response keyed by symbol. Use asof for a single point-in-time bar, or before+limit to back-page. 1d/1h cover the full universe with full history; sub-hour intervals back-fill on demand.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
toNoWindow end (inclusive; a bare YYYY-MM-DD means through the end of that day). Mutually exclusive with `asof` and `before` (400).
asofNoReturn a single bar as of this date/timestamp (point-in-time).
fromNoWindow start (inclusive), YYYY-MM-DD / ISO / epoch-ms. Combines with `to`; page inside the window with `cursor`. Mutually exclusive with `asof` and `before` (400).
limitNoMost-recent N bars. Default 100.
beforeNoReturn the N bars ending strictly before this date/timestamp (YYYY-MM-DD or epoch-ms) — back-paging.
cursorNoContinuation token from a prior response's `next_cursor` (sugar for `before`, and the way to page inside a from/to window).
tickerYesSymbol, or comma-separated list (up to 50) for a bulk response keyed by symbol.
intervalYesBar interval.

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 carries the full burden. It discloses meaningful behaviors: 'oldest-first' ordering, 'bulk response keyed by symbol', 'back-fill on demand', and coverage differences. It does not describe potential errors or rate limits, but for a read-only getter it is reasonably transparent.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence adds distinct value: main action, bulk/back-paging parameters, and interval behavior. No wasted words.

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?

For a complex tool with 8 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the primary use cases (single, bulk, point-in-time, back-paging) and interval nuances. It does not explain cursor-based paging explicitly, but that is documented in the schema. Overall, it is sufficient for an agent to choose and initially invoke the tool.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra semantics by explaining the comma-separated ticker list behavior, the point-in-time use of asof, the back-paging use of before+limit, and the special coverage of 1d/1h intervals. This goes beyond mere schema repetition.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('OHLCV bars') plus scope ('one or more symbols at a given interval, oldest-first'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_ticker_history or get_series by emphasizing bar data with explicit ordering.

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?

Provides clear usage context for parameter combinations ('Use asof for a single point-in-time bar, or before+limit to back-page') and interval coverage ('1d/1h cover the full universe with full history; sub-hour intervals back-fill on demand'). It does not explicitly name alternative tools, so it stops short of full when-not-to-use guidance.

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

All mcp-server 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

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools target distinct resource-action pairs, but get_ticker and get_ticker_history overlap (both return a single historical row via asof), and the four subscribe_* tools are thin wrappers around create_webhook, creating some ambiguity. Detailed descriptions mitigate but don't eliminate confusion.

Naming Consistency4/5

The tickerbot_ prefix and verb_noun pattern are consistent (create_*, get_*, list_*, delete_*, update_*), but subscribe_* deviates from create_* for webhooks, and scan/search_news are bare verbs. Overall predictable.

Tool Count2/5

35 tools is excessive for the domain; many could be consolidated (e.g., four subscribe_* variants into a single parameterized webhook creator, get_ticker/get_ticker_history into one). The breadth of data types justifies some volume, but this exceeds the 25-tool threshold for coherence.

Completeness5/5

Full lifecycle coverage for universes, custom signals, and webhooks; extensive read-side for tickers, series, bars, events, news, and scans. No critical dead ends: anything creatable can be updated/deleted/tested, and data lookups have appropriate query tools.

Resources