Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
ib-async-mcp

ib-async-mcp

by atomcp-ai
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

create_contract

Define a trading contract with type, symbol, and optional details for stocks, options, futures, forex, indices, CFDs, crypto, or bonds.

Instructions

Create a contract for trading. Types: stock, option, future, forex, index, cfd, crypto, bond.

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": {
      "contract_type": "<contract_type>",
      "symbol": "<symbol>"
    },
    "name": "create_contract"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
contract_typeYesContract type
symbolYesSymbol (e.g., AAPL, EURUSD)
exchangeNoExchangeSMART
currencyNoCurrencyUSD
expiryNoExpiry date for options/futures (YYYYMMDD)
strikeNoStrike price for options
rightNoOption right: C (call) or P (put)
multiplierNoContract multiplier

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.1

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose effects. It states 'Create' implying mutation but gives no details on side effects, permissions, or state changes.

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?

Extremely concise: two sentences with no redundancy. Every word is functional.

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

Completeness2/5

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

With 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too minimal. Missing guidance on parameter dependencies, usage flow, or post-creation behavior.

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 covers all 8 parameters (100%). Description only adds the list of contract types, which is already in the schema, so no meaningful extra meaning.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states the tool creates a contract and lists supported types, distinguishing it from trading execution tools like place_order. However, the exact outcome of 'create' is not specified.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is implied by listing contract types, but no explicit guidance on when to use this vs. alternatives like qualify_contracts or search_symbols is provided.

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