Skip to main content
Glama
MissionSquad

MCP Avantage

by MissionSquad

technicalIndicators_bbands

Calculate Bollinger Bands to analyze stock price volatility and identify potential overbought or oversold conditions using Alpha Vantage financial data.

Instructions

Bollinger Bands (BBANDS)

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).
time_periodYesNumber of data points used to calculate the indicator.
series_typeYesThe desired price type.

Implementation Reference

  • src/index.ts:1457-1471 (registration)
    Registers the "technicalIndicators_bbands" MCP tool, providing name, description, input schema, and execute handler that delegates to the shared executeAvantageTool helper.
    server.addTool({
      name: "technicalIndicators_bbands",
      description: "Bollinger Bands (BBANDS)",
      parameters: schemas.TechnicalIndicatorsTimeSeriesIndicatorParamsSchema, // Needs more params? Check AV docs
      execute: (
        args,
        context // Let type be inferred
      ) =>
        executeAvantageTool(
          "technicalIndicators_bbands",
          args,
          context,
          (av, params) => av.technicalIndicators.bbands(params)
        ),
    });
  • Zod schema defining input parameters for the BBANDS tool and similar time series technical indicators. Extends common params (symbol, interval, etc.) with time_period and series_type.
    export const TechnicalIndicatorsTimeSeriesIndicatorParamsSchema = TechnicalIndicatorsCommonIndicatorParamsSchema.extend({
      time_period: z.string().describe('Number of data points used to calculate the indicator.'), // Using string as AV API expects string
      series_type: SeriesTypeSchema,
    }).describe('Parameters for time series based technical indicators.')
  • Shared helper function implementing the core tool execution logic: resolves API key, manages AVantage client lifecycle, invokes the specific library method (av.technicalIndicators.bbands(params) for this tool), handles errors, and returns JSON response.
    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}`
        );
      }
    }
  • The specific handler function passed to server.addTool.execute for this tool, which invokes the generic executeAvantageTool with the appropriate tool name and library callback.
    execute: (
      args,
      context // Let type be inferred
    ) =>
      executeAvantageTool(
        "technicalIndicators_bbands",
        args,
        context,
        (av, params) => av.technicalIndicators.bbands(params)
      ),
Behavior1/5

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 fails to describe any behavioral traits such as data source (Alpha Vantage), rate limits, authentication needs, output format, or whether this is a read-only operation. The description is completely inadequate for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 concise with only three words, the description is under-specified rather than efficiently structured. It lacks any meaningful content that would help an agent understand or use the tool, making this brevity detrimental rather than helpful.

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 the complexity of a technical indicator tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It provides no context about what the tool returns, how it behaves, or when to use it, failing to compensate for the missing structured information.

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 all parameters well-documented in the input schema. The description adds no parameter information beyond what's already in the schema, so it meets the baseline score of 3 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.

Purpose2/5

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

The description 'Bollinger Bands (BBANDS)' is a tautology that restates the tool name without explaining what it does. It doesn't specify the verb (e.g., 'calculate' or 'retrieve') or the resource (e.g., 'technical indicator data'), nor does it distinguish this from sibling technical indicator tools like SMA or EMA.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention Bollinger Bands' specific use cases (e.g., volatility analysis, overbought/oversold signals) or differentiate it from other technical indicators in the sibling list, leaving the agent without context for selection.

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