Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Alpha Vantage MCP Server

Alpha Vantage MCP Server

by calvernaz
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

analytics_fixed_window

Fetch fixed-window analytics for stock symbols to calculate technical indicators and analyze market data over specific time periods.

Instructions

Fetch analytics fixed window

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": {
      "symbols": "<symbols>",
      "series_range": "<series_range>",
      "interval": "<interval>",
      "calculations": "<calculations>"
    },
    "name": "analytics_fixed_window"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
symbolsYes
intervalYes
series_rangeYes
ohlcNo
calculationsYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

D1.3/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description fails to disclose any behavioral traits. It does not mention whether this is a read-only operation, its potential side effects, rate limits, authentication needs, or what the output might look like, leaving the agent with insufficient information.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

While concise with only three words, the description is under-specified rather than efficiently informative. It lacks front-loaded critical details and wastes its brevity on redundancy without adding value.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (5 parameters, 4 required), no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is completely inadequate. It does not provide enough context for an agent to understand or invoke the tool effectively.

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 adds no meaning beyond the schema. It does not explain what parameters like 'symbols', 'interval', or 'calculations' represent, their expected formats, or how they interact, failing to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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

Purpose2/5

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

The description 'Fetch analytics fixed window' restates the tool name with minimal elaboration, making it tautological. It lacks specificity about what analytics are fetched, what resources are involved, or how it differs from sibling tools like 'analytics_sliding_window'.

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

Usage Guidelines1/5

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'analytics_sliding_window' or other analytics-related siblings. The description offers no context, prerequisites, or exclusions for usage.

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