Skip to main content
Glama
Cognitive-Stack

Volume Wall Detector MCP

by Cognitive-Stack
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
Python
Hybrid

Server Quality Checklist

58%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v1.0.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: analyze-stock focuses on data analysis, fetch-order-book retrieves order book data, and fetch-trades gets trade history. There is no overlap in functionality, making it easy for an agent to select the right tool without confusion.

    Naming Consistency4/5

    The naming is mostly consistent with a verb-noun pattern (analyze-stock, fetch-order-book, fetch-trades), using kebab-case throughout. The minor deviation is that analyze-stock uses 'analyze' while the others use 'fetch', but this is reasonable given the different actions.

    Tool Count3/5

    With only 3 tools, the set feels thin for a server named 'Volume Wall Detector MCP', which suggests a focus on volume analysis in trading. While the tools cover basic data fetching and analysis, more tools might be expected for comprehensive volume detection or trading operations.

    Completeness3/5

    The tools provide core data retrieval (order book, trades) and analysis, but there are notable gaps for a volume-focused detector, such as tools for real-time volume alerts, historical volume trends, or integration with trading actions. The surface is functional but incomplete for advanced volume analysis workflows.

  • Average 2.9/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.

    See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
    • No stable releases found
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI status not available

  • This repository is licensed under ISC License.

  • This repository includes a README.md file.

  • No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.

    Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.

  • Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.

  • If you are the author, simply .

    If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:

    {
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}

    Then . Browse examples.

  • Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

  • Behavior2/5

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

    No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'analyze' but doesn't specify whether this is a read-only operation, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what the output format might be. The description is vague about behavioral traits, failing to compensate for the lack of 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?

    The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, though it could be slightly more structured by separating key points. Every sentence earns its place, but there's room for minor improvement in clarity.

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

    Completeness2/5

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

    Given the complexity of stock analysis, lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'volume and value analysis' entails, the return values, or any behavioral constraints. The description fails to provide sufficient context for an agent to understand the tool's full scope and usage.

    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?

    The schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for both parameters ('days' and 'symbol') in the input schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining how 'volume and value analysis' relates to these parameters. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

    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 clearly states the tool's purpose as analyzing stock data with specific mention of 'volume and value analysis', providing a verb ('analyze') and resource ('stock data'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'fetch-order-book' or 'fetch-trades', which might also involve stock data analysis but with different focuses or methods.

    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?

    The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools ('fetch-order-book' and 'fetch-trades'), nor does it mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative contexts. It lacks explicit usage instructions, leaving the agent to infer based on tool names alone.

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

  • Behavior2/5

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

    With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool fetches data, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify critical details like rate limits, authentication requirements, data freshness, or error handling. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

    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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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

    Completeness2/5

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

    Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what the order book data includes (e.g., bid/ask prices, depths), how it's formatted, or any limitations, leaving the agent with incomplete context for effective use.

    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?

    The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'symbol' parameter clearly documented as 'Stock symbol to fetch order book for'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond this, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without compensating value.

    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 clearly states the action ('fetch') and resource ('current order book data for a symbol'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'analyze-stock' or 'fetch-trades', which might also involve stock data retrieval, preventing a perfect score.

    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?

    The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'analyze-stock' or 'fetch-trades'. It lacks context about specific use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based on tool names alone.

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

  • Behavior2/5

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

    With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('fetch') but doesn't describe traits like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'recent' means (e.g., time range, pagination). This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely queries external data.

    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 a single, efficient sentence with zero waste—it directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loaded with the core action.

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

    Completeness2/5

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

    Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that fetches data. It doesn't explain what 'recent' entails, the return format, or any behavioral context, which are critical for an agent to use it correctly. The simplicity of the tool doesn't compensate for these omissions.

    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?

    The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'symbol' parameter clearly documented. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't clarify format examples or constraints), so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.

    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 clearly states the action ('fetch') and target ('recent trades for a symbol'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'analyze-stock' or 'fetch-order-book', which might also involve symbol data, so it misses full sibling distinction.

    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?

    The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'analyze-stock' or 'fetch-order-book'. It implies usage for recent trades but offers no exclusions, prerequisites, or context about when it's appropriate, leaving the agent to guess based on tool names alone.

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

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

  • Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
  • Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
  • Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

volume-wall-detector-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

volume-wall-detector-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/Cognitive-Stack/volume-wall-detector-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server