Skip to main content
Glama
Johnhyeon

StockLens

by Johnhyeon
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Remote

get_volume_ranking

Read-onlyIdempotent

Get top stock rankings by trading volume or trade value for KOSPI, KOSDAQ, or all markets, with configurable count and sort options to see where capital flows.

Instructions

거래량/거래대금 순위 — 상위 종목을 가져옵니다.

"거래량 많은 종목" → sort_by="volume" (기본, 주수 기준) "거래대금 많은 종목"/"거래 규모 큰 종목"/"돈이 몰린 종목" → sort_by="trade_value" (원 기준)

두 순위는 뽑는 대상부터 다릅니다. volume 은 시장 전체의 거래량 순위, trade_value 는 시장 전체의 거래대금 순위를 그대로 받습니다(거래량 상위 안에서 다시 줄 세우는 게 아님). 주가가 높은 대형주(삼성전자·SK하이닉스 등)는 주수가 작아 volume 순위에는 잘 안 보이고, 주가가 몇 원~몇백 원인 종목은 주수만 커서 volume 순위 위쪽에 올라옵니다. 시장 자금이 어디 몰렸는지 볼 때는 trade_value 를 쓰세요.

거래량·거래대금은 KRX 체결분입니다(넥스트레이드 체결은 들어 있지 않음).

Args: market: "KOSPI" / "KOSDAQ" / "ALL" (기본 ALL) count: 가져올 종목 수 (기본 50, 최대 500) sort_by: "volume"(거래량 주수) / "trade_value"(거래대금 원)

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
countNo
marketNo
sort_byNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changedv1.1.3
    • removedInput schema / properties / count / default
      Removed value: -50
    • removedInput schema / properties / market / default
      Removed value: -"ALL"
    • removedInput schema / properties / sort_by / default
      Removed value: -"volume"
  2. First observedv0.4.0

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive), the description discloses important behavioral nuances: volume is by share count, trade_value is by won, the two rankings are independently computed rather than re-ranked, and the data covers only KRX executions excluding Nextrade. This is rich contextual behavior that the annotations alone do not provide.

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 appropriately sized for the tool's complexity and every sentence earns its place: purpose, parameter mapping, ranking nuance, data source caveat, and a structured Args block. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and then provides necessary clarification without redundancy.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given the tool's complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete. It covers all three parameters with defaults and constraints, explains the behavioral distinction between volume and trade_value rankings, and discloses the KRX-only data scope. Nothing an agent needs to select and call this tool correctly is missing.

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 input schema provides zero parameter descriptions, but the description fully compensates: market is specified as KOSPI/KOSDAQ/ALL with default ALL, count has default 50 and max 500, and sort_by has both accepted values with meanings. The description also clarifies the semantic difference between the two sort_by options, adding meaning far beyond the raw schema.

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 identifies the tool as fetching top stocks by trading volume/trade value ranking, with a specific verb ('가져옵니다') and resource. It also distinguishes the two sort modes (volume vs trade_value) and explains that they are separate market-wide rankings, which sets it apart from related ranking tools.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description gives explicit usage guidance: '거래량 많은 종목' maps to sort_by='volume' and '거래대금 많은 종목'/'돈이 몰린 종목' maps to sort_by='trade_value'. It also advises using trade_value when assessing where market money is flowing. It does not explicitly compare this tool to sibling ranking tools like get_change_ranking or get_market_cap_ranking, so it falls just short of a 5.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools