Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
big-mcp-b3

big-mcp-b3

by danielvm-git
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript

cotacao_ativo

Retrieve real-time B3 quotes for stocks, FIIs, BDRs, and ETFs by providing a ticker symbol to get current market pricing.

Instructions

Obtém cotação em tempo real de um ativo da B3 (ação, FII, BDR, ETF)

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": "cotacao_ativo"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tickerYesTicker do ativo (ex: PETR4, HGLG11, AAPL34)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states real-time pricing (which implies a read operation) and B3 market scope, but doesn't disclose potential delays, error behavior for invalid tickers, or whether it returns bid/ask versus last trade price.

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 efficient sentence that packs the key information: real-time scope, B3 market, and supported asset classes. No wasted words; well-structured for scanning.

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?

For a simple single-parameter tool, the description covers the core purpose. However, it doesn't mention return format, market-hours behavior, or handling of invalid/nonexistent tickers, which would be helpful for an agent deciding whether to call this 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 100%, so the schema already documents the ticker parameter with examples (PETR4, HGLG11, AAPL34). The description adds the asset-class context but doesn't add meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states the verb 'Obtém cotação em tempo real' and the resource 'ativo da B3', which is clear and specific. It lists asset types (ação, FII, BDR, ETF), providing useful scope. It distinguishes from siblings like historico_ativo (historical) and opcoes_ativo (options), though doesn't explicitly name them.

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?

The description implies real-time quote usage but doesn't explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like historico_ativo (historical data) or comparar_ativos (comparing assets). No explicit exclusions or alternative recommendations are given, though the asset-type enumeration provides some implicit guidance.

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