polygon-mcp

by atomcp-ai

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Remote

forex_get_macd

Compute the MACD technical indicator for a forex pair to gauge momentum and potential trend reversals.

Instructions

Get MACD for a forex pair.

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": {
      "symbol": "<symbol>"
    },
    "name": "forex_get_macd"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`limit`	No
`order`	No	desc
`symbol`	Yes
`adjusted`	No
`timespan`	No	day
`timestamp`	No
`series_type`	No	close
`long_window_size`	No
`short_window_size`	No
`signal_window_size`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 31, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior1/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It merely restates the tool's purpose without mentioning read-only nature, default behaviors, data format, rate limits, or any side effects. This leaves the agent without critical context.

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 concise sentence that immediately states the core purpose with no fluff. It is front-loaded and easy to parse, but given the tool's complexity, it could have beneficially expanded while remaining concise.

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?

With 10 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is extremely sparse. It does not cover parameter semantics, return values, or usage scenarios, making it inadequate for an agent to correctly invoke the tool in complex or nuanced cases.

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?

The input schema has 10 parameters with zero descriptions, and the tool description explains none of them. Parameters such as 'long_window_size', 'series_type', and 'timestamp' remain undefined, giving the agent no semantic guidance beyond their names.

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 states the tool gets MACD for a forex pair, specifying the verb, resource, and scope. It effectively distinguishes itself from sibling tools like forex_get_rsi, stocks_get_macd, and other asset-class MACD tools.

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 the tool's name and description: use when MACD is needed for a forex pair. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternative indicators or asset classes, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.

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

Deploy Server