Financial market intelligence — real-time stock quotes (Twelve Data), market indices (S&P 500, VIX, NASDAQ, gold, oil via FRED), and SEC 13F institutional holdings. First traditional market data API on x402.
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Average 3.9/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.
Each tool targets a completely distinct data domain: institutional holdings, market indices, and stock quotes. There is no overlap or ambiguity in their purposes.
All tool names follow a consistent 'get_' prefix followed by a descriptive noun phrase (institutional_holdings, market_indices, stock_quotes). The pattern is uniform and predictable.
With only 3 tools, the server is tightly scoped and each tool provides a distinct, valuable capability for market data retrieval. This is well within the typical 3-15 range and feels appropriate for a focused utility.
The tool surface covers key market data needs, but lacks historical price data or company fundamentals, which are common adjacent use cases. These are minor gaps that agents can work around by combining the existing tools or using external data.
get_institutional_holdingsAInspectGet institutional investor 13F SEC filings for a given CIK or institution name. Default is Berkshire Hathaway (CIK 0001067983).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cik | No | SEC CIK number (e.g. 0001067983 for Berkshire Hathaway) | 0001067983 |
| institution | No | Institution name to search for CIK (e.g. "Bridgewater Associates") |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It discloses the read-only nature ('Get'), the selection mechanism (CIK or institution name), and a default value. However, it does not mention what happens if both parameters are provided, the return format, or any access limitations, so transparency is moderate. Score 3.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with a second clarifying sentence about the default. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, with no filler. Score 5.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple getter with two optional parameters, the description provides enough context for an agent to understand the tool's function. Since there is no output schema, the description does not explain the return structure, but that is acceptable for a straightforward data retrieval tool. Score 4.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already describes both parameters fully, including a default for cik, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond repeating that the tool accepts CIK or institution name. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Get' and clearly identifies the resource 'institutional investor 13F SEC filings'. It specifies the key parameters (CIK or institution name) and includes a default, making the purpose unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_market_indices, so a score of 4 is appropriate.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is used to retrieve 13F filings for a given CIK or institution, which provides clear context. However, it does not state when to prefer this tool over siblings or mention any exclusions or alternatives, so it lacks explicit usage guidance. Thus a score of 3.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_market_indicesAInspectGet major market indices and macro indicators: S&P 500, NASDAQ, VIX, 10-Year Treasury, WTI Oil, Gold, USD/EUR. Data from FRED (St. Louis Fed).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It adds value by naming the data source (FRED), but it does not mention response format, update frequency, rate limits, or any other traits. The simple getter nature is clear, but additional context would be beneficial.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and then the source. Every word earns its place, delivering maximum information in minimal space.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter retrieval tool with no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete: it lists all expected data items and the source. It could optionally note whether data is real-time or delayed, but that is not critical for basic usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the schema imposes no burden. The description compensates by listing the specific indicators returned, giving the agent a clear idea of what the output covers. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description meets it.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and explicitly lists the resources (S&P 500, NASDAQ, VIX, etc.). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_stock_quotes (individual stock prices) and get_institutional_holdings (holdings data).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies its use case by enumerating macro indicators and indices, which differentiates it from stock-specific queries. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide any exclusion criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_stock_quotesAInspectGet real-time stock price quotes for one or more symbols. Returns price, % change, 52-week high/low, exchange, and currency.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| symbols | No | Comma-separated ticker symbols (e.g. AAPL,MSFT,NVDA) | AAPL,MSFT,NVDA,GOOGL,TSLA |
| exchange | No | Filter by exchange: NYSE or NASDAQ |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must convey the tool's behavioral profile. It discloses the returned data (price, % change, 52-week high/low, exchange, currency) but omits potential error behavior, rate limits, or data source reliability. For a read-only quote tool, this is adequate but not comprehensive.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is highly concise, consisting of two sentences that immediately state the core function and return fields. There is no filler or redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity, the absence of an output schema, and the description's listing of return fields, it provides sufficient context. It could be more explicit about the response structure (e.g., array of objects) or handling of multiple symbols, but it is reasonably complete for a quote retrieval tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already provides full descriptions and defaults for both parameters (100% coverage). The description adds little beyond confirming that one or more symbols are supported, which aligns with the 'symbols' parameter. No deeper parameter semantics are provided.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Get') and clearly identifies the resource ('real-time stock price quotes') for one or more symbols. It also lists return fields, which distinguishes it from sibling tools for holdings and indices.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description clearly implies when to use the tool: whenever real-time stock quotes are needed. However, it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, though the sibling tool names make the differentiation obvious.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
