mm-ibkr-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Get Historical Bars

get_historical_bars

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve historical OHLCV bars for a fully specified instrument, choosing bar size, duration, and regular trading hours to analyze past price action.

Instructions

Get historical OHLCV bars for a fully specified instrument.

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": {
      "instrument": "<instrument>",
      "bar_size": "<bar_size>",
      "duration": "<duration>"
    },
    "name": "get_historical_bars"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`bar_size`	Yes
`duration`	Yes
`rth_only`	No
`instrument`	Yes
`what_to_show`	No	TRADES

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`bars`	No	Historical bars.
`symbol`	Yes	Symbol requested.
`barCount`	Yes	Number of bars returned.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 8, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The annotations declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint as true, and the description's 'Get' wording is consistent with a non-mutating operation. No additional behavioral context is required, though it could mention that it does not modify state.

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 a single, concise sentence with no redundant information. It focuses on the core purpose without filler.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The description omits details about the output format (e.g., array of bars, columns) and any error conditions. While the purpose is clear, the sparse information might leave an agent uncertain about the expected response structure or pagination behavior.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool description does not explain any of the top-level parameters (bar_size, duration, rth_only, what_to_show). The schema provides defaults but no format constraints or allowed values, leaving an agent to guess valid inputs such as '1 day' or '1 hour'.

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 function as retrieving historical OHLCV bars for a specified instrument, using the verb 'Get' and naming the data type. It distinguishes itself from related read-only tools like get_quote and get_option_snapshot by focusing on historical data.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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 does not mention that it is for historical analysis rather than real-time data, nor does it state any prerequisites or limitations (e.g., instrument resolution).

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