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

ib-async-mcp

by atomcp-ai
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

get_market_data

Retrieve a real-time market data snapshot for any financial contract by specifying its type and symbol.

Instructions

Get real-time market data snapshot for a contract.

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": "get_market_data"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
contract_typeYes
symbolYes
exchangeNoSMART
currencyNoUSD

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.1

TDQS

C2.8/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It only states 'real-time snapshot,' lacking details on side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or what happens if data is unavailable.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no waste. However, it is minimal and could be expanded without losing conciseness.

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?

Given 4 parameters (2 required) and no output schema, the description lacks completeness. It does not explain return values, prerequisites, or typical usage patterns, making it insufficient for reliable agent invocation.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description provides zero explanation of parameters. It does not clarify contract_type, symbol format, exchange values, or currency meaning, leaving the agent without essential context.

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 'Get real-time market data snapshot for a contract' clearly states the action (get), resource (real-time market data snapshot), and scope (for a contract). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like get_historical_data and get_contract_details.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites (e.g., must be connected) or scenarios where other tools like get_historical_data are preferred.

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