tradingview-mcp

egx_fibonacci_retracement

Read-only

Calculate Fibonacci retracement levels for EGX stocks to find potential support and resistance. Specify symbol, lookback period, and timeframe.

Instructions

Fibonacci retracement analysis for EGX stocks.

Args: symbol: EGX stock symbol (e.g., "COMI", "TMGH", "FWRY") lookback: Period for swing high/low — "1M", "3M", "6M", "52W", "ALL" (default 52W) timeframe: Analysis timeframe (5m, 15m, 1h, 4h, 1D, 1W, 1M — default 1D)

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "symbol": "<symbol>"
    },
    "name": "egx_fibonacci_retracement"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`symbol`	Yes
`lookback`	No	52W
`timeframe`	No	1D

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.7.1Jul 29, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so no safety contradiction exists. The description adds parameter options (lookback, timeframe) but does not disclose output format, calculation methodology, or other behavioral traits beyond the structured annotations.

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 succinct, consisting of a one-sentence summary followed by a clean, structured args list. No redundant information is present, and each line adds value.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Parameter documentation is thorough, and the tool is straightforward. However, the description does not mention what the analysis returns (e.g., retracement levels or a chart), and there is no output schema to fill this gap, leaving a minor completeness issue.

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?

The description explains all three parameters in detail, providing examples for symbol, valid values for lookback and timeframe, and defaults. Since the input schema has 0% description coverage, this fully compensates for the missing schema-level documentation.

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 clearly states 'Fibonacci retracement analysis for EGX stocks,' which is a specific verb+resource combination. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like egx_market_overview and egx_sector_scan, none of which mention Fibonacci.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies usage for Fibonacci analysis on EGX stocks but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives. It does not mention exclusions or alternative tools, leaving the context partially implied.

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

Deploy Server