big-mcp-b3

historico_ativo

Fetch historical price data for any B3-listed asset by ticker, with configurable time period and interval, to analyze price trends and performance over time.

Instructions

Obtém histórico de preços de um ativo da B3

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": "historico_ativo"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ticker`	Yes	Ticker do ativo (ex: PETR4, HGLG11)
`periodo`	No	Período do histórico	1mo
`intervalo`	No	Intervalo entre pontos	1d

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Aug 4, 2026

TDQS

C2.6/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It does not describe return format (candles? prices?), data source constraints, or whether this is a read-only operation. For a data-retrieval tool, the lack of response-shape disclosure is a gap.

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?

Single concise sentence; zero waste. Efficient and to the point. Would benefit from more detail but scores well on conciseness itself.

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?

For a historical-data retrieval tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is thin. It doesn't disclose what the response contains, units, or any caveats. Compared to sibling tools with clearer scopes, this description is under-specified.

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 all three parameters (ticker, periodo, intervalo) are documented in the schema itself. The description adds minimal extra semantic value beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description 'Obtém histórico de preços de um ativo da B3' states a clear verb+resource (gets price history of a B3 asset). It does not explicitly distinguish from siblings like cotacao_ativo (current price), but the word 'histórico' (history) implies time-series retrieval. Adequate but no sibling differentiation.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The description gives no indication of when to prefer this over cotacao_ativo, comparar_ativos, or proventos_ativo. Usage context is only implied by the name and description.

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

Deploy Server