TradingAgents MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

price_history

Retrieve daily OHLCV prices for a ticker from a start date to an optional as-of date to support stock or crypto research and backtesting.

Instructions

Daily OHLCV prices from start_date (YYYY-MM-DD) up to as_of.

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": {
      "ticker": "<ticker>",
      "start_date": "<start_date>"
    },
    "name": "price_history"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`as_of`	No
`ticker`	Yes
`start_date`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.0Nov 7, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and does not meet it. It says nothing about invalid ticker handling, maximum range limits, whether missing days (holidays) are skipped, or row ordering. Only the date-window semantics are disclosed.

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?

A single sentence with no filler, front-loaded with the resource and immediately qualified by the range. Every clause earns its place.

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

Completeness3/5

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

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required, and the date-window semantics are covered. However, with zero annotation coverage and zero schema descriptions on three parameters, the definition leaves real behavioral and parameter questions unanswered for a data-fetch tool.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does define start_date's format (YYYY-MM-DD) and clarifies that as_of is the exclusive upper bound, but it never explains what a null as_of means (presumably today) nor the expected ticker format.

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?

States a specific resource and verb: 'Daily OHLCV prices' with a defined date range. That is enough to tell it apart from siblings like technical_indicators or market_snapshot, but it never explicitly names the ticker scope, so differentiation is implicit rather than declared.

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 when-to-use guidance at all. There is no statement of when to prefer this over market_snapshot (a single point) or technical_indicators (derived series), even though those siblings overlap the same data domain. The agent must infer the routing itself.

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