Skip to main content
Glama
MissionSquad

MCP Avantage

by MissionSquad

technicalIndicators_mfi

Calculate the Money Flow Index (MFI) to identify overbought or oversold conditions in stocks using price and volume data for technical analysis.

Instructions

Money Flow Index (MFI)

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.

Implementation Reference

  • The handler implementation for the technicalIndicators_mfi tool. It registers the tool with the MCP server and defines the execute function that invokes the Alpha Vantage MFI technical indicator via the shared executeAvantageTool utility.
    server.addTool({
      name: "technicalIndicators_mfi",
      description: "Money Flow Index (MFI)",
      parameters: schemas.TechnicalIndicatorsMfiParamsSchema,
      execute: (
        args,
        context // Let type be inferred
      ) =>
        executeAvantageTool(
          "technicalIndicators_mfi",
          args,
          context,
          (av, params) => av.technicalIndicators.mfi(params)
        ),
    });
  • Zod schema defining the input parameters for the technicalIndicators_mfi tool, based on the common time-period-only parameters schema.
    export const TechnicalIndicatorsMfiParamsSchema = TechnicalIndicatorsTimePeriodOnlyParamsSchema.describe('Parameters for MFI.');
  • Shared helper function used by the technicalIndicators_mfi handler (and all other tools) to manage Alpha Vantage client instances, perform API calls, and handle responses and errors.
    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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Money Flow Index (MFI)' reveals nothing about the tool's behavior: it doesn't indicate whether this is a read-only operation, what data source it uses (e.g., Alpha Vantage API), potential rate limits, error conditions, or output format. For a tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, this lack of behavioral context is critical.

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 a single phrase, the description is under-specified rather than efficiently informative. It lacks any structuring or front-loading of key information, failing to convey purpose or usage in a meaningful way. Conciseness should not come at the cost of clarity, and this description sacrifices essential details for brevity.

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 tool's complexity (5 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and many sibling tools), the description is woefully incomplete. It doesn't explain what MFI is, how it's calculated, what the output contains, or when to use it over other indicators. Without annotations or output schema, the description fails to provide the necessary context for effective tool invocation, leaving significant gaps in understanding.

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%, with all parameters documented in the input schema. The description adds no parameter information beyond what's already in the schema, so it doesn't enhance understanding of parameter meanings or usage. However, the high schema coverage justifies the baseline score of 3, as the schema adequately handles parameter documentation without needing description support.

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 'Money Flow Index (MFI)' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name with its acronym expansion. It doesn't specify what action the tool performs (e.g., 'calculate', 'retrieve', or 'analyze'), what resource it operates on, or what distinguishes it from sibling technical indicators like OBV or VWAP. While MFI is a known financial indicator, the description fails to articulate the tool's function beyond naming it.

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. With numerous sibling tools for technical indicators (e.g., SMA, EMA, RSI-like indicators such as AROON or ULTOSC), there's no indication of MFI's specific use case, prerequisites, or comparative context. This leaves the agent without direction for tool selection among similar financial analysis functions.

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