Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
gold-mcp

gold-mcp

by ThaiTrevor
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

get_gold_ohlcv

Fetch historical OHLCV bars for gold (XAUUSD) from Yahoo Finance, supporting multiple timeframes and configurable lookback periods.

Instructions

Historical OHLCV bars for gold from Yahoo Finance.

Args: timeframe: One of "1m", "5m", "15m", "30m", "1h", "4h", "1d", "1wk", "1mo". lookback: Number of most recent bars to return.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "get_gold_ohlcv"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
lookbackNo
timeframeNo1h

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv4.1.2

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds the source (Yahoo Finance) and valid timeframes, which is useful. However, it does not disclose potential data delays, rate limits, or the exact return format, leaving some ambiguity for an agent.

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 extremely concise: one opening sentence plus two argument explanations. Every word adds value, and it is well-structured with the core purpose front-loaded.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a simple 2-parameter tool with no output schema or annotations, the description is largely complete. It defines both parameters and the data source. The main gap is the lack of an explicit return structure, but the tool name and context make this reasonable to infer.

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

Parameters4/5

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

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description fully compensates by explicitly listing valid timeframes and explaining 'lookback' as the number of recent bars. This adds critical meaning beyond the schema's type/default information.

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 retrieving historical OHLCV bars for gold from Yahoo Finance. The verb 'get' with the specific resource 'gold OHLCV bars' is concise and distinguishes it from siblings like get_gold_price and get_paxg_ohlcv_realtime.

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?

No usage guidance is provided. The description does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_gold_price for spot prices or get_paxg_ohlcv_realtime for real-time data. There is no mention of preferred contexts or exclusions.

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