Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
TradingAgents MCP

TradingAgents MCP

by ceharsh24
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

technical_indicators

Calculate daily indicator values over a chosen look-back window for a ticker, with selectable trend, momentum, volatility, and volume signals to support market analysis.

Instructions

Daily values of technical indicators over the look-back window ending at as_of.

Choose up to 8 that complement each other (avoid redundant pairs): close_50_sma, close_200_sma (trend); close_10_ema (short-term momentum); macd, macds, macdh (momentum, crossovers, divergence); rsi (overbought/oversold, 70/30); boll, boll_ub, boll_lb (volatility bands, breakouts); atr (volatility, stop distances); vwma (volume-confirmed trend); mfi (money flow).

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>",
      "indicators": "<indicators>"
    },
    "name": "technical_indicators"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
as_ofNo
tickerYes
indicatorsYes
look_back_daysNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.3.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden, and it does disclose the key behavioral trait: results are daily granularity measured backwards from as_of, including the default-null as_of behavior implicitly (window ends 'at as_of'). It says nothing about whether invalid indicator names error or are ignored, no cost/rate-limit context, and no note on the 8-indicator cap being enforced or advisory.

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?

Front-loaded with the one-sentence purpose, then a scannable categorized indicator list where each parenthetical adds interpretive value rather than filler. Slightly dense, but no sentence is redundant.

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

Completeness5/5

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

An output schema exists, so return values need not be restated, and the description covers the remaining burdens: parameter vocabulary, window semantics, and selection strategy. For a read-only indicator fetch with four parameters, nothing essential is missing.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 0% and the indicators parameter is an unconstrained string array, so the description's enumeration of every valid name (close_50_sma through mfi) with its category is the only source of that vocabulary — a substantial addition beyond the schema. It also clarifies that as_of anchors the window. It does not give units or limits for look_back_days beyond the default-30 schema hint.

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 first sentence names a specific resource (technical indicators) and its shape (daily values over a look-back window ending at as_of), which tells an agent exactly what it will get. It does not explicitly contrast itself with close siblings like price_history or market_snapshot, so the agent must infer the boundary.

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?

Guidance is real but scoped to parameter selection: 'Choose up to 8 that complement each other (avoid redundant pairs)' plus per-indicator categorization (trend, momentum, volatility) and interpretation hints (rsi 70/30, atr stop distances). There is no statement of when to call this tool versus price_history or market_snapshot, so tool-selection guidance is left implicit.

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