Skip to main content
Glama
MissionSquad

MCP Avantage

by MissionSquad

technicalIndicators_ad

Analyze stock price trends using the Chaikin A/D Line indicator to assess accumulation and distribution patterns for informed trading decisions.

Instructions

Chaikin A/D Line

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
symbolYesThe stock symbol (e.g., "IBM").
intervalYesTime interval (e.g., "daily", "60min", "weekly"). Check Alpha Vantage docs for valid intervals per indicator.
datatypeNoData format for the response.json
monthNoSpecific month for intraday intervals (YYYY-MM format).

Implementation Reference

  • src/index.ts:1091-1101 (registration)
    Registers the MCP tool 'technicalIndicators_ad' (Chaikin A/D Line) with its input schema reference and execute handler that delegates to the shared executeAvantageTool helper and calls av.technicalIndicators.ad(params) from the Avantage library.
      name: "technicalIndicators_ad",
      description: "Chaikin A/D Line",
      parameters: schemas.TechnicalIndicatorsCommonIndicatorParamsSchema,
      execute: (
        args,
        context // Let type be inferred
      ) =>
        executeAvantageTool("technicalIndicators_ad", args, context, (av, params) =>
          av.technicalIndicators.ad(params)
        ),
    });
  • Zod schema defining input parameters for the tool: required symbol and interval, optional datatype (default json) and month.
    export const TechnicalIndicatorsCommonIndicatorParamsSchema = z.object({
      symbol: z.string().describe('The stock symbol (e.g., "IBM").'),
      interval: z.string().describe('Time interval (e.g., "daily", "60min", "weekly"). Check Alpha Vantage docs for valid intervals per indicator.'),
      datatype: DatatypeSchema.default('json').optional(),
      month: z.string().optional().describe('Specific month for intraday intervals (YYYY-MM format).'),
    }).describe('Common parameters for many technical indicators.')
  • Shared helper function used by the tool's handler to manage authentication, AVantage client instance via resourceManager, execute the library method, handle errors, and return JSON string of the data.
    async function executeAvantageTool<TArgs, TResult>(
      toolName: string,
      args: TArgs,
      context: Context<Record<string, unknown> | undefined>, // Use the imported Context type directly
      avantageMethod: (
        av: AVantage,
        args: TArgs
      ) => Promise<{ error?: boolean; reason?: string; data?: TResult }>
    ): Promise<string> {
      logger.info(`Executing '${toolName}' tool for request ID: ${context}`);
      logger.debug(`Args for ${toolName}: ${JSON.stringify(args)}`);
    
      // --- Authentication & Resource Management ---
      // Access extraArgs safely - it might be null or undefined
      const extraArgsApiKey = context.extraArgs?.apiKey as string | undefined;
      const apiKey = extraArgsApiKey || config.apiKey;
    
      if (!apiKey) {
        logger.error(`'${toolName}' failed: Alpha Vantage API key missing.`);
        throw new UserError(apiKeyErrorMessage);
      }
      logger.debug(
        `Using AV API key (source: ${extraArgsApiKey ? "extraArgs" : "environment"}) for ${toolName}`
      );
    
      try {
        // Get or create AVantage instance managed by ResourceManager
        const av = await resourceManager.getResource<AVantage>(
          apiKey, // Cache key is the resolved API key
          "avantage_client", // Type identifier for logging
          async (key) => {
            // Factory Function
            logger.info(
              `Creating new AVantage instance for key ending ...${key.slice(-4)}`
            );
            // AVantage library reads AV_PREMIUM from process.env internally
            return new AVantage(key);
          },
          async (avInstance) => {
            // Cleanup Function (no-op needed for AVantage)
            logger.debug(`Destroying AVantage instance (no-op)`);
          }
        );
    
        // --- Library Call ---
        const result = await avantageMethod(av, args);
    
        // --- Response Handling ---
        if (result.error) {
          logger.warn(
            `'${toolName}' failed. Reason from avantage: ${result.reason}`
          );
          throw new UserError(result.reason || `Tool '${toolName}' failed.`);
        }
    
        if (result.data === undefined || result.data === null) {
          logger.warn(`'${toolName}' completed successfully but returned no data.`);
          return "null"; // Return string "null" for empty data
        }
    
        logger.info(`'${toolName}' completed successfully.`);
        // Stringify the data part of the response
        return JSON.stringify(result.data);
      } catch (error: any) {
        logger.error(
          `Error during execution of '${toolName}': ${error.message}`,
          error
        );
        // If it's already a UserError, rethrow it
        if (error instanceof UserError) {
          throw error;
        }
        // Otherwise, wrap it in a UserError
        throw new UserError(
          `An unexpected error occurred while executing tool '${toolName}': ${error.message}`
        );
      }
    }
Behavior1/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Chaikin A/D Line' reveals nothing about whether this is a read-only operation, what data source it uses (Alpha Vantage), whether it requires authentication, rate limits, or what the output format looks like. For a financial data tool with no annotation coverage, this is completely inadequate behavioral transparency.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

While technically concise with just three words, this represents under-specification rather than effective conciseness. The description fails to front-load essential information and doesn't provide the minimal context needed for tool selection. Every sentence should earn its place, but here the single phrase doesn't earn its place by providing meaningful guidance.

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

Completeness1/5

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

Given this is a technical indicator calculation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a completely inadequate description, the contextual completeness is severely lacking. The description fails to explain what the tool returns, how it differs from other technical indicators, or provide any meaningful context for an AI agent to understand when and how to use it appropriately.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 4 parameters thoroughly. The description adds zero parameter information beyond what's in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description, which applies here.

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

Purpose2/5

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

The description 'Chaikin A/D Line' is essentially a tautology that restates the tool name without explaining what the tool does. It doesn't specify the verb (e.g., 'calculate', 'retrieve', 'analyze') or clarify that this is a technical indicator calculation tool. While it hints at the financial domain, it fails to provide a clear purpose statement that distinguishes it from sibling technical indicator tools.

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

Usage Guidelines1/5

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

The description provides absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With numerous sibling technical indicator tools (adosc, aroon, atr, etc.), there's no indication of what makes the Chaikin A/D Line unique, when it's appropriate versus other indicators, or what analytical context it serves. The description offers zero usage context.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

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/MissionSquad/mcp-avantage'

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