drasticstatic作業コピー — Fortunaトレーディングシステムで使用されています。これはverygoodplugins/robinhood-mcpのローカルクローンから作成された独立したリポジトリです。アップストリームは比較目的のリモートとして追跡されており、変更は適用前にレビューされます。
# Check for upstream updates (review before applying) git fetch upstream && git log upstream/main --oneline
Robinhoodポートフォリオ調査用の読み取り専用MCPサーバー。robin_stocksをラップし、AIアシスタントが分析のためにポートフォリオデータにアクセスできるようにします。
⚠️ 調査ツール専用 - このサーバーは読み取り専用アクセスを提供します。取引機能は公開されていません。
⚠️ 非公式API - robin_stocksの非公式APIを使用しています。予告なく動作しなくなる可能性があります。自己責任で使用してください。
接続すると、Claudeとポートフォリオについて自然な会話ができるようになります：
「ポートフォリオの健全性をチェックして。総資産額、セクター集中度、大幅に上昇または下落しているポジションはある？」
Claudeがあなたのポジションを取得し、セクターのエクスポージャーを計算し、最もパフォーマンスの良い銘柄と悪い銘柄を特定し、集中リスクを警告します。
「NVDAのポジションを増やそうと考えている。ファンダメンタルズ、最近のニュース、アナリストの評価、過去1年間のパフォーマンスを教えて。」
価格履歴、PER、決算日、アナリストのセンチメントを組み合わせた包括的な調査結果を一度の回答で取得できます。
「ポートフォリオ内のクルーズライン銘柄を比較して。CCL、RCL、NCLHを並べて、PER、時価総額、年初来パフォーマンスを表示して。」
類似の保有銘柄を素早く評価し、相対的な価値を特定します。
「今年受け取った配当は？保有銘柄のうちどれが配当を支払っていて、その利回りは？」
不労所得を追跡し、ポートフォリオ内の配当機会を特定します。
「エネルギーセクターへのエクスポージャーは？上位5銘柄への集中度はどのくらい？」
セクター集中度を分析し、ウェイトが高すぎる可能性のあるポジションを特定します。
「今後2週間以内に決算発表がある保有銘柄は？」
パーソナライズされたカレンダーで、決算のボラティリティに先手を打ちましょう。
「ポートフォリオの収益を内訳して。利益と損失の要因は何？」
どのポジションがパフォーマンスに最も貢献しているかを理解します。
「ウォッチリストにあるすべての銘柄のクォートとファンダメンタルズを取得して。今興味深いものはある？」
追跡している銘柄を一括調査します。
Related MCP server: Public.com MCP Server
pip install robinhood-mcpまたはuvxで直接実行します：
uvx robinhood-mcpexport ROBINHOOD_USERNAME="your_email"
export ROBINHOOD_PASSWORD="your_password"
export ROBINHOOD_TOTP_SECRET="your_2fa_secret" # Only if you use authenticator app注: RobinhoodでFace ID、Touch ID、またはパスコードログインを使用している場合（認証アプリなし）、ROBINHOOD_TOTP_SECRETは不要です。
~/Library/Application Support/Claude/claude_desktop_config.jsonに追加します：
{
"mcpServers": {
"robinhood": {
"command": "uvx",
"args": ["robinhood-mcp"],
"env": {
"ROBINHOOD_USERNAME": "your_email",
"ROBINHOOD_PASSWORD": "your_password"
}
}
}
}claude mcp add robinhood -- uvx robinhood-mcpツール | 説明 |
| ポートフォリオ価値、株式、購買力、日次変動 |
| コストベース、現在価値、損益を含む全保有銘柄 |
| ティッカーごとの数量、価値、損益を含む単一の保有銘柄 |
| ウォッチリスト内の銘柄 |
| リアルタイム価格、買値/売値、出来高 |
| PER、時価総額、配当利回り、52週レンジ |
| OHLCV価格履歴（日/週/月/年） |
| シンボルの最近のニュース記事 |
| 決算日、EPS予想、実績 |
| アナリストの買い/ホールド/売り評価 |
| 配当支払い履歴 |
| 現在のオプションポジション |
| 名前またはティッカーで銘柄を検索 |
単純なクエリ:
「今のポートフォリオの価値は？」
「価値ベースで上位5つの保有銘柄を見せて」
「HIMSはすでに持っている？現在のポジションは？」
「AAPLのクォートを取得して」
単一シンボルのポートフォリオに関する質問には、robinhood_get_positionsよりもrobinhood_get_positionを使用してください。単一シンボルツールは全保有銘柄の再構築を避けるため、「HIMSを買い増すべきか？」といった質問に対してはるかに高速です。
分析リクエスト:
「GOOGLとMETAのファンダメンタルズを比較して」
「52週平均を下回って取引されている銘柄はどれ？」
「過去1年間のTSLAの価格チャートを見せて」
「最もパフォーマンスの良い銘柄は？最も悪いのは？」
調査ワークフロー:
「クルーズライン業界を理解したい。CCL、RCL、NCLHのデータを取得して、ファンダメンタルズと最近のパフォーマンスを比較して。」
「ポートフォリオの中でPERが15未満で、利益成長がプラスの銘柄を見つけて」
「いくつかのポジションで大きな損失が出ている。損切りすべきか判断するために、最もパフォーマンスの悪い銘柄のファンダメンタルズとニュースを見せて。」
読み取り専用: 取引の実行、ウォッチリストの変更、アカウント設定の変更はできません
非公式API: RobinhoodはいつでもAPIを変更する可能性があり、機能が停止する場合があります
リアルタイムストリーミングなし: クォートは時点データであり、ライブフィードではありません
セッションの有効期限: 定期的に再認証が必要になる場合があります
レート制限: 大量に使用するとRobinhoodのレート制限に達する可能性があります
認証情報はRobinhoodへの認証のためにローカルでのみ使用されます
セッショントークンはrobin_stocksによって~/.tokens/robinhood.pickleにキャッシュされます
.envファイルをコミットしたり、認証情報を公開したりしないでください
このツールは取引を実行できません。設計上読み取り専用です
git clone https://github.com/verygoodplugins/robinhood-mcp.git
cd robinhood-mcp
pip install -e ".[dev]"
# Lint
ruff check . && ruff format --check .
# Test
pytest
# Run locally
robinhood-mcp「Not logged in」エラー:
ユーザー名とパスワードが正しいか確認してください
認証アプリで2FAを設定している場合は、ROBINHOOD_TOTP_SECRETが必要です
アカウントがロックされていないことを確認するために、Robinhoodアプリからログインを試みてください
「Non-base32 digit found」エラー:
TOTPシークレットに無効な文字が含まれています
シークレットにはA-Zの文字と2-7の数字のみを含める必要があります
認証アプリを使用していない場合は、ROBINHOOD_TOTP_SECRETを完全に削除してください
レート制限:
robin_stocksには組み込みのレート制限はありません
レート制限に達した場合は、数分待ってから再試行してください
MIT
このツールは教育および研究目的のみに使用してください。いつでも動作しなくなる可能性のある非公式APIを使用しています。作成者は、アカウントの制限、データの不正確さ、または経済的損失について一切の責任を負いません。
このプロジェクトは、Robinhood Markets, Inc.と提携、承認、または接続されていません。
毎日のポートフォリオブリーフィングを取得するcronジョブを設定します：
# ~/.claude/commands/portfolio-review.md
---
description: "Daily portfolio health check"
---
Using the robinhood MCP tools:
1. Get my current portfolio value and day change
2. Identify my top 3 gainers and top 3 losers today
3. Flag any positions that are down more than 20% from cost basis
4. Check if any holdings have earnings in the next 7 days
5. Give me a 2-3 sentence summary I can read with my morning coffee毎日実行します：
# Add to crontab -e
0 7 * * 1-5 cd ~/Projects && claude -p "/portfolio-review" --dangerously-skip-permissions >> ~/portfolio-reports/$(date +\%Y-\%m-\%d).md# ~/.claude/commands/weekly-research.md
---
description: "Weekly deep dive on portfolio"
---
For each of my top 10 holdings by value:
1. Pull current fundamentals and compare to sector averages
2. Get recent news and analyst rating changes
3. Flag any significant changes from last week
4. Identify 2-3 stocks from my watchlist that might be worth adding
Format as a markdown report I can review on the weekend.Very Good PluginsのJack Arturoによって🧡を込めて作成されました。
robin_stocksおよびFastMCPを搭載しています。
Get all dividend payments received.
Returns list of dividend payments with amount, payable date, record date, and instrument details.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, and the description only lists output fields without disclosing behavioral traits like authentication needs, rate limits, or side effects. Minimal transparency beyond purpose.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences: first states the verb and resource, second lists output fields. No redundant words, front-loaded, efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no parameters and an output schema present, the description is largely sufficient. However, it lacks mention of pagination or any constraints, leaving minor gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. Schema coverage is 100% (vacuously), and the description adds no param info but doesn't need to.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and specific resource 'dividend payments received', distinguishing it from sibling tools like robinhood_get_earnings and robinhood_get_positions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, or any prerequisites. The description only states what it does without contextual usage instructions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get earnings data for a stock.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| symbol | Yes | Stock ticker symbol |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits but only states the basic purpose. It does not mention whether results are filtered by date, whether it returns future or past earnings, or any side effects, leaving significant gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence is concise and front-loaded, but could incorporate more useful information within its brevity without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the existence of an output schema (not shown), the description does not need to detail return values. However, it lacks context about the nature of earnings data (e.g., quarterly vs annual) and any filtering capabilities, making it minimally complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% for the single parameter 'symbol', with a clear description 'Stock ticker symbol'. The description adds no further meaning beyond the schema, achieving baseline adequacy.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states verb 'Get' and resource 'earnings data' for a stock, distinguishing from siblings like get_quote or get_news. However, it does not specify what aspects of earnings (e.g., revenue, EPS, date) are included, which could be more precise.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_fundamentals which might also include earnings. No exclusions or context provided, leaving the agent without decision support.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get fundamental data for a stock.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| symbol | Yes | Stock ticker symbol |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, and the description only says 'get fundamental data', not disclosing read-only nature, authentication needs, or any side effects. Vague.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One concise sentence with no wasted words, but lacks structure or front-loading of critical info. Still efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with one parameter and an output schema present, the description is minimally adequate but omits behavior details. Could be improved.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The sole parameter 'symbol' is described in the schema as 'Stock ticker symbol'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'get' and resource 'fundamental data for a stock', distinguishing it from siblings like get_quote or get_ratings. However, it could be more specific about what fundamental data includes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool instead of siblings like robinhood_get_earnings or robinhood_get_dividends, which also provide fundamental data.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get historical price data for a stock.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| symbol | Yes | Stock ticker symbol | |
| interval | No | Time interval (5minute, 10minute, hour, day, week) | day |
| span | No | Time span (day, week, month, 3month, year, 5year) | month |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description bears full burden. It only states the tool retrieves historical data, but does not disclose key traits such as output format (OHLCV? adjusted?), rate limits, or data frequency nuances. This is insufficient for a data-fetching tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (one sentence) with no fluff. However, it could benefit from slightly more detail without sacrificing brevity, such as mentioning supported intervals or output type.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With an output schema present, the description does not need to detail return values. However, it lacks context about behavior like data granularity or historical range limitations, making it minimally adequate for a tool with three parameters.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema has 100% description coverage, so the schema already defines parameters (symbol, interval, span). The description adds no additional meaning beyond 'historical price data', yielding a baseline score of 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and resource 'historical price data for a stock,' effectively distinguishing it from siblings like robinhood_get_quote (current price) and robinhood_get_fundamentals. However, it lacks explicit mention of time-range parameters that further clarify scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
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 (e.g., get_quote for current price, get_dividends for dividend history). The description does not state prerequisites or typical use cases, leaving the agent to infer context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get recent news articles for a stock.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| symbol | Yes | Stock ticker symbol |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the basic action, omitting details like rate limits, pagination, or the meaning of 'recent'. The read-only nature is implied but not confirmed, and potential limitations are unclear.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. Every word serves a purpose, making it concise and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (1 parameter, output schema exists), the description is adequate but leaves gaps: no mention of output format, number of articles, or time range. The existence of an output schema partially compensates, but behavioral context is lacking.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% for the only parameter 'symbol' with description 'Stock ticker symbol'. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get recent news articles for a stock' clearly states the verb (get), resource (news articles), and scope (recent, for a stock). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools that deal with dividends, earnings, fundamentals, etc.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like robinhood_get_ratings or robinhood_get_fundamentals. The purpose is self-evident, but the description does not provide usage context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get all current options positions (read-only).
Returns list of options positions with chain symbol, type, strike price, expiration, and quantity.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description notes that the operation is 'read-only', which adds transparency. However, it does not disclose other behavioral traits such as pagination, rate limits, or authentication requirements beyond what is implied.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with the core action. Every sentence adds value without wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no parameters and an output schema exists, the description covers the essential information. It could optionally mention that it returns positions for the authenticated user, but it is largely complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are no parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter detail, but baseline for zero parameters is 4.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get all current options positions (read-only)' and lists the returned fields. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like robinhood_get_positions by specifying 'options positions'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The name implies it is for options positions, but no alternatives are mentioned or excluded.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get current portfolio value and performance metrics.
Returns portfolio profile with equity, extended hours equity, withdrawable amount, and other account details.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. The description implies a read-only operation by stating it returns data, but does not explicitly disclose safety, authentication requirements, or rate limits. The lack of annotations places the burden on the description, which does not fully address these aspects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, containing only two sentences with no fluff. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second elaborates on return fields. Every word adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity (no parameters, output schema exists), the description is mostly complete. It lists key return fields. A minor improvement could mention that the data reflects current market conditions, but overall it is sufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero parameters, so schema description coverage is trivially 100%. The description adds value by explaining what the tool returns (equity, extended hours equity, etc.) without repeating schema content.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool gets portfolio value and performance metrics, listing specific fields like equity and withdrawable amount. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like robinhood_get_dividends or robinhood_get_positions by focusing on the overall portfolio.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, but given its simple nature (no parameters), usage is straightforward. Some mention of context (e.g., 'Use this to check your overall account summary') would improve clarity.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get one current stock position with a faster single-symbol lookup.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| symbol | Yes | Stock ticker symbol (e.g., "HIMS", "AAPL") |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so description bears full burden. It describes a read operation but omits details like data freshness ('current'), authentication requirements, or rate limits. Minimal behavioral context beyond the tool name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, front-loaded with key action and differentiator. No unnecessary words; every part earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given a simple 1-parameter tool with output schema, description is minimally adequate but lacks context on what 'current' means (e.g., real-time vs delayed) and any prerequisites.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema covers 100% of parameters with description for 'symbol'. Description adds no additional meaning beyond schema, baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it retrieves one current stock position, and 'faster single-symbol lookup' distinguishes it from the plural sibling tool 'robinhood_get_positions' which likely handles multiple symbols.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies use for single-symbol lookups and suggests speed advantage, but does not explicitly exclude use cases or mention when to prefer the sibling tool for multiple symbols.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get all current stock positions with details.
Returns a dict mapping stock symbols to position details including price, quantity, average buy price, equity, and percent change.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, description carries full burden. It describes output structure but does not disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, data freshness, or that it is a safe read operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three concise sentences: first states purpose, second describes return format, third lists included details. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no parameters and presence of output schema, description adequately explains what the tool does and what it returns. Could mention that it pertains to the authenticated user, but overall complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema has zero parameters, and description confirms it retrieves all positions. No additional meaning needed beyond what schema provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states it gets all current stock positions with details, using specific verb 'get' and resource 'all current stock positions'. Distinguishes from sibling robinhood_get_position which gets a single position.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Specifies 'all current stock positions', providing context for when to use it. No explicit exclusions or alternatives, but sibling names imply it's the broadest retrieval tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get real-time quote for a stock symbol.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| symbol | Yes | Stock ticker symbol (e.g., "AAPL", "TSLA") |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It does not mention any behavioral traits such as data freshness (e.g., 'real-time' is claimed but not qualified), limitations, or required permissions. The output schema exists but is not described.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core purpose efficiently. However, it could be expanded slightly to include context without being verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, given the number of sibling tools, the agent could benefit from knowing that this is the primary quote endpoint or what specific fields the output contains.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% (the 'symbol' parameter is described as 'Stock ticker symbol'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, which is adequate for a single, well-known parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it retrieves a real-time quote for a given stock symbol, using a specific verb ('get') and resource ('real-time quote'). It is distinct from sibling tools like robinhood_get_dividends or robinhood_get_historicals, which cover different financial data.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings. Given the set of similar data retrieval tools, explicit conditions or alternatives (e.g., 'for price data use this, for financial statements use fundamentals') are missing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get analyst ratings summary for a stock.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| symbol | Yes | Stock ticker symbol |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, and the description offers no behavioral details beyond the implied read operation. Does not mention authentication requirements, error handling for invalid symbols, or any side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, no redundancy. Efficient for a tool with one parameter, though it could be slightly more informative without much cost.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With an output schema present and a simple input, the description is adequate but minimal. Does not leverage the presence of siblings to clarify positioning.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% for the single parameter 'symbol', which already has a clear description. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, meeting the baseline.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states the action ('Get'), the resource ('analyst ratings summary'), and the target ('a stock'). Distinguishes from sibling tools like robinhood_get_news or robinhood_get_quote.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use or not use this tool versus alternatives. Does not explain scenarios where ratings would be appropriate or when to use other tools like get_quote or get_fundamentals.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get stocks in a watchlist.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | Watchlist name (default: "Default") | Default |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It states only 'Get stocks in a watchlist,' which is a read operation, but does not confirm idempotency, authentication needs, or any side effects. The minimal description fails to provide safety guarantees beyond the obvious.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at five words, which is efficient and front-loaded. However, it could include a brief note on what the output contains or the parameter's impact without becoming verbose, making it slightly under-informative for a perfect score.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, output schema present), the description is minimally adequate. It does not mention the output format (though it can be inferred from the output schema) and lacks integration with sibling tools, leaving room for improvement in guidance.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage for its single parameter, including a default value. The description does not add any meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'stocks in a watchlist,' which distinguishes it from sibling tools like robinhood_get_portfolio or robinhood_get_positions. However, it lacks specificity about what details of the stocks are returned (e.g., symbols only or full data), keeping it from a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
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 like robinhood_get_positions or robinhood_get_portfolio. The description does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Search for stock symbols by company name or ticker.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | Search query (company name or partial ticker) |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It does not disclose behaviors such as case sensitivity, exact vs. partial matching, or output format beyond the schema. Minimal detail limits an agent's ability to anticipate results.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no superfluous words. It is easy to parse but could be more informative while remaining concise. A bit underspecified but not wasteful.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has one parameter and an output schema, so complexity is low. The description adequately states the core function but omits behavioral traits like rate limits or read-only status. For a simple search tool, it is minimally complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema covers the single parameter 'query' with a description matching the tool description. Since coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already conveys.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Search for stock symbols by company name or ticker' clearly states the verb 'Search', the resource 'stock symbols', and the method (by name or ticker). It is distinct from sibling tools which focus on dividends, earnings, quotes, etc., avoiding confusion.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for finding symbols but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., to get quotes or fundamentals after searching). No when-not-to-use or prerequisites are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.2robinhood_get_dividendsrobinhood_get_earningsrobinhood_get_fundamentalsrobinhood_get_historicalsrobinhood_get_newsrobinhood_get_options_positionsrobinhood_get_portfoliorobinhood_get_positionrobinhood_get_positionsrobinhood_get_quoterobinhood_get_ratingsrobinhood_get_watchlistrobinhood_search_symbolsScored across 13 tools
Each tool targets a distinct data type (dividends, earnings, fundamentals, etc.) with clear boundaries. The only potential overlap is between get_position and get_positions, but they are differentiated by single vs. all symbols.
All tools follow a uniform 'robinhood_verb_noun' pattern, using snake_case and descriptive verbs (get, search). No mixing of styles or vague names.
13 tools is well-suited for a data-heavy financial service, covering a broad range of endpoints without being overwhelming. The count feels neither sparse nor excessive.
The tool set comprehensively covers read-only data retrieval (quotes, positions, dividends, earnings, news, etc.), but lacks write operations (e.g., placing orders) which might be expected from a brokerage service. Minor gap for transactional use cases.
Read-only MCP server for Robinhood Chain token discovery, research, and due diligence via GMGN.
MCP server for OpenMM — exposes market data, account, trading, and strategy tools to AI agents
Read-only MCP server exposing a user ORANO library to their own AI agent.
MCP server exposing the Backtest360 engine API as tools for AI agents.
