massive-mcp

by danielbres

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Local

get_trades

Retrieve historical trades for a stock by ticker symbol. Filter by date range and set row limit for paginated results.

Instructions

Historical trades for a stock.

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>"
    },
    "name": "get_trades"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`ticker`	Yes	Stock symbol.
`timestamp_gte`	No	Inclusive lower bound ("YYYY-MM-DD" or ns/ms unix).
`timestamp_lt`	No	Exclusive upper bound.
`limit`	No	Max rows. Default 50.
`cursor`	No	Pagination cursor.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0May 8, 2026

TDQS

C2.5/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description should disclose behavioral traits like read-only nature, data source, or rate limits. It only states 'historical trades,' leaving out important context about what the data includes.

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?

The description is a single sentence, which is efficient, but it is underspecified and does not earn its place by providing necessary information. It lacks key details that should be present.

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?

Despite 5 parameters and an existing output schema, the description fails to explain pagination (cursor, limit), date format preferences, or what fields the output contains. It is incomplete for a tool with this complexity.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the schema already explains all parameters. The description does not add any additional semantic meaning beyond what is in the schema, maintaining a baseline score.

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 description clearly states the tool retrieves 'historical trades for a stock,' which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_last_trade and get_quotes by emphasizing the historical nature of the data.

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 get_quotes for current data or get_aggregates for aggregated data. There is no mention of prerequisites or context.

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