Access comprehensive historical end-of-day forex price data with the Full Historical Forex Chart API. Gain detailed insights into currency pair movements, including open, high, low, close (OHLC) prices, volume, and percentage changes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | No | End date (YYYY-MM-DD) | |
| from | No | Start date (YYYY-MM-DD) | |
| symbol | Yes | Forex pair symbol (e.g., EURUSD) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden but only discloses the returned data fields (OHLC, volume, percentage changes). It does not mention pagination, date range handling, output format, timezone, or any other behavioral traits, leaving gaps for an agent.
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 and reasonably concise. The phrase 'Gain detailed insights into currency pair movements' is slightly ornamental, but the rest is informative and front-loaded with the key purpose.
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?
This is a simple 3-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations. The description is adequate for basic understanding but lacks details about return structure, optional parameters, date range defaults, and any rate limits or restrictions, making it only moderately complete.
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 has 100% description coverage, and the description does not add extra semantics beyond what the schema already provides. It mentions the data fields but doesn't elaborate on symbol, from, or to format, so the baseline score 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 clearly states the tool accesses 'comprehensive historical end-of-day forex price data' via the 'Full Historical Forex Chart API', which is a specific verb-resource pairing. It also lists the data fields (OHLC, volume, percentage changes), helping to distinguish it from lighter or real-time siblings.
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 use for historical end-of-day data, but it never explicitly states when to prefer this over alternatives like getForexHistoricalLightChart or intraday forex endpoints. There is no when-not-to-use guidance or mention of alternative tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.