drasticstatic 작업 복사본 — Fortuna 트레이딩 시스템에서 사용됩니다. 이 저장소는 verygoodplugins/robinhood-mcp의 로컬 클론에서 생성된 독립적인 저장소입니다. 업스트림은 자발적인 비교를 위해 원격으로 추적되며, 변경 사항은 적용하기 전에 검토됩니다.
# Check for upstream updates (review before applying) git fetch upstream && git log upstream/main --oneline
Robinhood 포트폴리오 조사를 위한 읽기 전용 MCP 서버입니다. robin_stocks를 래핑하여 AI 어시스턴트가 분석을 위해 귀하의 포트폴리오 데이터에 접근할 수 있도록 합니다.
⚠️ 연구용 도구 전용 - 이 서버는 읽기 전용 액세스만 제공합니다. 트레이딩 기능은 노출되지 않습니다.
⚠️ 비공식 API - robin_stocks 비공식 API를 사용합니다. 예고 없이 작동이 중단될 수 있습니다. 사용 시 위험은 본인 책임입니다.
연결되면 Claude와 포트폴리오에 대해 자연스러운 대화를 나눌 수 있습니다:
"내 포트폴리오 상태를 점검해 줘. 총 가치, 섹터 집중도, 그리고 크게 상승하거나 하락한 포지션이 있어?"
Claude가 귀하의 포지션을 가져와 섹터 노출도를 계산하고, 가장 성과가 좋거나 나쁜 종목을 식별하며, 집중 투자 위험을 경고합니다.
"NVDA 포지션을 추가할까 생각 중이야. 펀더멘털, 최근 뉴스, 애널리스트 등급, 그리고 지난 1년간의 성과를 보여줘."
가격 이력, P/E 비율, 실적 발표일, 애널리스트 의견을 종합한 포괄적인 조사 결과를 한 번에 확인하세요.
"내 포트폴리오에 있는 크루즈 라인 주식들을 비교해 줘 - CCL, RCL, NCLH를 P/E 비율, 시가총액, 연초 대비 성과와 함께 나란히 보여줘."
유사한 보유 종목을 빠르게 평가하여 상대적 가치를 파악하세요.
"올해 받은 배당금이 얼마지? 어떤 종목이 배당금을 지급하고 수익률은 어떻게 돼?"
수동적 소득을 추적하고 포트폴리오 내 배당 기회를 식별하세요.
"에너지 섹터에 대한 내 노출도는 어느 정도야? 상위 5개 종목에 얼마나 집중되어 있지?"
섹터 집중도를 분석하고 비중이 과도할 수 있는 포지션을 식별하세요.
"앞으로 2주 안에 실적 발표가 예정된 보유 종목이 있어?"
개인화된 캘린더로 실적 발표 변동성에 미리 대비하세요.
"내 포트폴리오 수익률을 분석해 줘. 무엇이 수익과 손실을 주도하고 있지?"
어떤 포지션이 성과에 가장 크게 기여하고 있는지 파악하세요.
"내 관심 종목(watchlist)에 있는 모든 종목의 시세와 펀더멘털을 가져와 줘. 지금 흥미로운 종목이 있어?"
추적 중인 주식들을 대량으로 조사하세요.
Related MCP server: Public.com MCP Server
pip install robinhood-mcp또는 uvx를 사용하여 직접 실행하세요:
uvx robinhood-mcpexport ROBINHOOD_USERNAME="your_email"
export ROBINHOOD_PASSWORD="your_password"
export ROBINHOOD_TOTP_SECRET="your_2fa_secret" # Only if you use authenticator app참고: Robinhood에서 Face ID, Touch ID 또는 비밀번호 로그인을 사용하는 경우(인증 앱 미사용), ROBINHOOD_TOTP_SECRET은 필요하지 않습니다.
~/Library/Application Support/Claude/claude_desktop_config.json에 추가하세요:
{
"mcpServers": {
"robinhood": {
"command": "uvx",
"args": ["robinhood-mcp"],
"env": {
"ROBINHOOD_USERNAME": "your_email",
"ROBINHOOD_PASSWORD": "your_password"
}
}
}
}claude mcp add robinhood -- uvx robinhood-mcp도구 | 설명 |
| 포트폴리오 가치, 자산, 매수 가능 금액, 일일 변동 |
| 원가 기준, 현재 가치, 손익을 포함한 모든 보유 종목 |
| 티커별 수량, 가치, 손익을 포함한 단일 보유 종목 |
| 관심 종목에 있는 주식 |
| 실시간 가격, 매수/매도 호가, 거래량 |
| P/E 비율, 시가총액, 배당 수익률, 52주 범위 |
| OHLCV 가격 이력 (일/주/월/년) |
| 심볼에 대한 최근 뉴스 기사 |
| 실적 발표일, EPS 추정치, 실제치 |
| 애널리스트 매수/보유/매도 등급 |
| 배당금 지급 이력 |
| 현재 옵션 포지션 |
| 이름이나 티커로 주식 검색 |
간단한 질문:
"지금 내 포트폴리오 가치가 얼마야?"
"가치 기준 상위 5개 종목을 보여줘"
"내가 이미 HIMS를 보유하고 있어? 현재 포지션은 어때?"
"AAPL 시세를 알려줘"
단일 종목 포트폴리오 질문에는 robinhood_get_positions보다 robinhood_get_position을 사용하는 것이 좋습니다. 단일 종목 도구는 모든 보유 종목을 다시 불러오지 않으므로 "HIMS를 더 살까?"와 같은 질문에 훨씬 빠르게 응답합니다.
분석 요청:
"GOOGL과 META의 펀더멘털을 비교해 줘"
"내 주식 중 52주 평균 가격보다 낮게 거래되는 종목은 뭐야?"
"지난 1년간 TSLA 가격 차트를 보여줘"
"내 포트폴리오에서 가장 성과가 좋은 종목은? 가장 나쁜 종목은?"
조사 워크플로우:
"크루즈 산업을 이해하고 싶어. CCL, RCL, NCLH 데이터를 가져와서 펀더멘털과 최근 성과를 비교해 줘."
"내 포트폴리오에서 P/E가 15 미만이고 실적 성장이 긍정적인 주식을 찾아줘"
"몇몇 포지션에서 큰 손실을 보고 있어. 손절할지 보유할지 결정할 수 있게 가장 성과가 나쁜 종목들의 펀더멘털과 뉴스를 보여줘."
읽기 전용: 거래를 실행하거나, 관심 종목을 수정하거나, 계정 설정을 변경할 수 없습니다.
비공식 API: Robinhood가 언제든 API를 변경하여 기능이 중단될 수 있습니다.
실시간 스트리밍 없음: 시세는 실시간 피드가 아닌 특정 시점의 데이터입니다.
세션 만료: 주기적으로 재인증이 필요할 수 있습니다.
속도 제한: 과도하게 사용하면 Robinhood의 속도 제한이 발생할 수 있습니다.
자격 증명은 Robinhood 인증을 위해 로컬에서만 사용됩니다.
세션 토큰은 robin_stocks에 의해 ~/.tokens/robinhood.pickle에 캐시됩니다.
.env 파일을 커밋하거나 자격 증명을 노출하지 마십시오.
이 도구는 거래를 실행할 수 없으며, 설계상 읽기 전용입니다.
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" 오류:
사용자 이름과 비밀번호가 정확한지 확인하세요.
인증 앱을 사용하는 2FA를 설정했다면 ROBINHOOD_TOTP_SECRET이 필요합니다.
계정이 잠기지 않았는지 확인하기 위해 Robinhood 앱을 통해 로그인을 시도해 보세요.
"Non-base32 digit found" 오류:
TOTP 시크릿에 유효하지 않은 문자가 포함되어 있습니다.
시크릿은 A-Z 문자 및 2-7 숫자만 포함해야 합니다.
인증 앱을 사용하지 않는 경우 ROBINHOOD_TOTP_SECRET을 완전히 제거하세요.
속도 제한:
robin_stocks에는 내장된 속도 제한 기능이 없습니다.
속도 제한에 걸리면 몇 분 기다린 후 다시 시도하세요.
MIT
이 도구는 교육 및 연구 목적으로만 제공됩니다. 언제든 중단될 수 있는 비공식 API를 사용합니다. 작성자는 계정 제한, 데이터 부정확성 또는 재정적 손실에 대해 책임을 지지 않습니다.
이 프로젝트는 Robinhood Markets, Inc.와 제휴, 보증 또는 연결되어 있지 않습니다.
매일 포트폴리오 브리핑을 받기 위한 크론 작업을 설정하세요:
# ~/.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 coffee매일 실행하세요:
# 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 Plugins의 Jack Arturo가 🧡를 담아 제작했습니다.
robin_stocks 및 FastMCP 기반으로 구동됩니다.
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.
