FinBridge

Daily Stock Prices (FinBridge DB)

get_stock_prices

Read-only

Get daily OHLCV price history from the local finbridge database (populated by the nightly ingest jobs). Rows are returned newest first.

Listed equities and ETFs. Japan and Europe carry no prices at all, and crypto is not served.

Price coverage by market — we only store what we have redistribution rights to:

Korea (DART + Financial Services Commission): full daily history, corporate-action adjusted. SERVED.
Taiwan (TWSE OpenAPI, Open Government Data License): daily history. SERVED.
US (Databento EQUS.SUMMARY): daily history from 2023-03-28. SERVED. Split-adjusted; dividend-adjusted closes exist where SEC-reported dividends do (adj_close).
Japan: NOT served. EDINET publishes disclosure documents, not prices, so we hold Japanese filings and the company master but no quotes.

Args:

company: a ticker (US 'AAPL', TW/JP 4-digit '2330'), a KR 6-digit stock code ('005930'), or a company name in the local language or English ('TSMC', 'Toyota', '삼성전자'). Resolution priority: exact ticker > 6-digit KR code > exact name (name or English name) > partial name (multiple partial matches return a candidate list error).
from / to: optional YYYY-MM-DD range bounds (inclusive)
limit: max rows, 1-500 (default 60)
response_format: 'markdown' (default) or 'json'

Account limits: a free account includes the most recent 130 trading sessions of each name. Results follow the current account's history entitlement. When the window is trimmed the response carries a plan_limit field saying so.

Returns: {company: {name, source, ticker|stock_code}, count, truncated, prices: [{date, open, high, low, close, volume}]} — newest date first; truncated=true means older rows exist beyond 'limit'.

Examples:

{company: '005930', limit: 30} -> last 30 KR trading days for Samsung Electronics
{company: '005930', from: '2026-01-01', to: '2026-06-30'} -> Samsung Electronics H1 2026

Use when: historical closes/volumes for charting or return calculations from ingested data. Don't use for crypto, which is not served. FinBridge has no real-time equity quote tool — equity prices here are end-of-day closes from the nightly ingest; the only live data is regulator filings (get_dart_filings / get_edgar_filings). Errors: unknown company -> no-match or candidate-list error; JP/EU company -> no-prices error (those markets carry statements only); no price rows -> a market-specific hint (new listing, delisted, nightly lag).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`to`	No	End date YYYY-MM-DD (inclusive)
`from`	No	Start date YYYY-MM-DD (inclusive)
`limit`	No	Max rows, 1-500 (default 60), newest first
`company`	Yes	KR 6-digit stock code (e.g. '005930') or company name
`response_format`	No	'markdown' for a table, 'json' for compact machine-readable output	markdown

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`count`	Yes
`prices`	Yes
`company`	Yes
`truncated`	No
`data_as_of`	No
`data_notes`	No
`plan_limit`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedSep 7, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / data_notes

Added value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": true,
+  "properties": {},
+  "type": "object"
+}

Changed2 schema fields changedSep 7, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / data_as_of

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "additionalProperties": true,
+      "properties": {},
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ]
+}

addedOutput schema / properties / plan_limit

Added value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": true,
+  "properties": {},
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedSep 6, 2026

TDQS

A5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Despite readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false covering the safety profile, the description adds substantial behavioral context: newest-first ordering, account entitlement trimming with plan_limit, split/dividend adjustments, truncation semantics, market-specific no-price errors, and coverage boundaries. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 long but every sentence earns its place given the many market caveats, account limits, and resolution rules. It is well-structured: core capability first, then coverage, args, return shape, examples, use-when, and errors. The information is front-loaded and scannable.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a tool with five parameters, account limits, market coverage variations, and error modes, the description is exceptionally complete. It even provides the return object shape, truncation meaning, and market-specific error hints, so an agent has everything needed to call and interpret the result correctly. The output schema presence does not reduce the value of this added context.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, but the description goes far beyond the schema by explaining company resolution priority (ticker > KR code > exact name > partial name), candidate-list errors on ambiguous names, inclusive date semantics, and giving concrete examples for limit and from/to usage. This materially improves correct invocation.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Get daily OHLCV price history from the local finbridge database') and immediately scopes what it covers: listed equities and ETFs, with explicit exclusions for Japan, Europe, and crypto. This clearly distinguishes it from the many filing- and financial-data siblings.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly says when to use it ('historical closes/volumes for charting or return calculations from ingested data') and when not to ('Don't use for crypto...'). It also names the live-data alternatives (get_dart_filings / get_edgar_filings) and clarifies that no real-time quote tool exists, fully routing the agent to the right choice.

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

All FinBridge 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.