Avanza MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

get_number_of_owners

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve paginated Avanza ownership data for a specific order-book ID in source order, preserving the full historySummary; not market-wide ownership.

Instructions

Page Avanza ownersPoints in source order and preserve the full historySummary.

data contains upstream fields, not a fabricated top-level owner count. Summary fields describe the full source history, not this page. Not market-wide ownership.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`limit`	No
`offset`	No
`order_book_id`	Yes	Avanza order-book ID from discovery; not the separate instrumentId.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`data`	Yes	Required history array; an explicit empty array is valid.
`pagination`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed3 schema fields changedv2.1.0Sep 29, 2026

removedOutput schema / properties / data / additionalProperties
```
Removed value: -true
```

changedOutput schema / properties / data / properties / historySummary / anyOf

Previous value: -[
-  {
-    "additionalProperties": true,
-    "properties": {
-      "oneYearChange": {
-        "anyOf": [
-          {
-            "type": "integer"
-          },
-          {
-            "type": "null"
-          }
-        ],
-        "default": null
-      },
-      "oneYearChangePercent": {
-        "anyOf": [
-          {
-            "type": "number"
-          },
-          {
-            "type": "null"
-          }
-        ],
-        "default": null
-      },
-      "thisYearChange": {
-        "anyOf": [
-          {
-            "type": "integer"
-          },
-          {
-            "type": "null"
-          }
-        ],
-        "default": null
-      },
-      "thisYearChangePercent": {
-        "anyOf": [
-          {
-            "type": "number"
-          },
-          {
-            "type": "null"
-          }
-        ],
-        "default": null
-      }
-    },
-    "type": "object"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]New value: +[
+  {
+    "properties": {
+      "oneYearChange": {
+        "anyOf": [
+          {
+            "type": "integer"
+          },
+          {
+            "type": "null"
+          }
+        ],
+        "default": null
+      },
+      "oneYearChangePercent": {
+        "anyOf": [
+          {
+            "type": "number"
+          },
+          {
+            "type": "null"
+          }
+        ],
+        "default": null
+      },
+      "thisYearChange": {
+        "anyOf": [
+          {
+            "type": "integer"
+          },
+          {
+            "type": "null"
+          }
+        ],
+        "default": null
+      },
+      "thisYearChangePercent": {
+        "anyOf": [
+          {
+            "type": "number"
+          },
+          {
+            "type": "null"
+          }
+        ],
+        "default": null
+      }
+    },
+    "type": "object"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "null"
+  }
+]

removedOutput schema / properties / data / properties / ownersPoints / items / additionalProperties
```
Removed value: -true
```

Addedv2.0.0Sep 15, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already establish readOnly/idempotent/no-destructive, so the bar is lower, and the description earns credit by adding real behavior: results are paged in source order, data carries upstream fields rather than a synthesized count, and summary fields cover the full history rather than the current page. That last point materially affects how an agent interprets the output and is not derivable from the annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three compact sentences with the primary behavior front-loaded and no filler. The grammar is telegraphic ('Page Avanza ownersPoints...') and the 'Not market-wide ownership' fragment is abrupt, but nothing is wasted.

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

Completeness3/5

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

An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not required, and the description usefully pre-empts confusion between the name and the actual payload. Still, for a paginated tool it omits how limit/offset interact with the full-history summary claim, and offers no selection guidance, leaving moderate gaps.

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 only 33% (solely order_book_id documented), so the description should compensate, and it partially does by characterizing the operation as a paged traversal. However it never explains limit/offset semantics, defaults, or ordering guarantees beyond 'source order', leaving the two undocumented pagination params thin.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description gives a concrete verb and resource: paging Avanza ownersPoints in source order and preserving the full historySummary. It also scopes the data ('Not market-wide ownership') and warns what is NOT returned (a fabricated top-level owner count). It never names or distinguishes itself from any sibling, so it stops short of a 5.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus siblings like get_stock_info or get_company_financials, nor any prerequisite beyond the schema's own 'from discovery' note. The only routing signal is a negative scope claim ('Not market-wide ownership'), which narrows expectations but does not guide tool selection.

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