How do I use Questrade MCP Server?

1. Click on "Deploy Server". 2. Wait a few minutes for the server to deploy. Once ready, it will show a "Started" state. 3. In the chat, type @ followed by the MCP server name and your instructions, e.g., "@Questrade MCP Server Show me my current balances and stock positions" That's it! The server will respond to your query, and you can continue using it as needed. Here is a step-by-step guide with screenshots.

Questrade MCP Server

by zachmelin

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

JavaScript

Remote

Questrade MCP Server

npm version Release

An unofficial Model Context Protocol (MCP) server for integrating with the Questrade API, providing access to trading accounts, market data, and portfolio information.

⚠️ Disclaimer: This is an unofficial, community-built integration and is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or supported by Questrade Inc. Use at your own risk.

Features

🔐 Authentication: OAuth 2.0 token management with automatic refresh
📊 Account Data: Access accounts, positions, balances, and order history
📈 Market Data: Real-time quotes, symbol search, and historical candles
🛡️ Error Handling: Comprehensive error handling and logging
🔧 TypeScript: Full TypeScript support with proper type definitions

Related MCP server: Finance Tools MCP

Installation

Option 1: Install from npm (Recommended)

npm install -g questrade-mcp-server

Option 2: Clone and Build

Clone this repository
Install dependencies:
```
npm install
```
Copy the environment template:
```
cp .env.example .env
```

Configure your Questrade API credentials in .env:

QUESTRADE_API_URL=https://api01.iq.questrade.com
QUESTRADE_REFRESH_TOKEN=your_refresh_token_here
# QUESTRADE_TOKEN_DIR=/path/to/custom/directory

Getting Questrade API Credentials

For detailed information about Questrade's API authorization, see the official API documentation.

Step 1: Generate API Token

Log in to your Questrade account or navigate directly to https://apphub.questrade.com/UI/UserApps.aspx
In the top right corner, select "API centre" from the drop-down menu under your login name
Click "Activate API" and agree to the API access agreement
Click "Generate new token" for manual authorization
Copy the refresh token provided

Step 2: Configure Environment

Copy your refresh token to .env:

QUESTRADE_REFRESH_TOKEN=your_refresh_token_here

The MCP server will automatically:
- Use your refresh token to get an access token
- Discover the correct API server URL
- Handle token refresh when needed
- Persist new tokens to ~/.questrade-mcp/tokens.json (or system temp directory as fallback)

Important: Refresh tokens are single-use only. The server will attempt to persist new refresh tokens to ~/.questrade-mcp/tokens.json (configurable via QUESTRADE_TOKEN_DIR environment variable), but if a token expires or gets used by another process, you'll need to manually generate a new one following the steps above.

Step 3: Test Your Setup

Verify your token works correctly:

npm run test-connection

Note: If you get a "'tsx' is not recognized" error, the test script will automatically build the project first and use Node.js instead.

Usage

Development

npm run dev

Production

npm run build
npm start

Adding to Claude Desktop

Find your Claude Desktop config file:
- Windows: %APPDATA%\Claude\claude_desktop_config.json
- macOS: ~/Library/Application Support/Claude/claude_desktop_config.json
- Linux: ~/.config/Claude/claude_desktop_config.json

Add the MCP server configuration:

Quick setup (Recommended)

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "questrade": {
      "command": "npx",
      "args": ["questrade-mcp-server"],
      "env": {
        "QUESTRADE_REFRESH_TOKEN": "your_refresh_token_here"
      }
    }
  }
}

Local development build

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "questrade": {
      "command": "node",
      "args": ["/path/to/your/project/dist/index.js"],
      "env": {
        "QUESTRADE_REFRESH_TOKEN": "your_refresh_token_here"
      }
    }
  }
}

If using local build, update the path to match your actual project location
Restart Claude Desktop
Test the connection by asking Claude to show your Questrade accounts

For detailed setup instructions, see claude-desktop-config.md.

Available Tools

Account Management

get_accounts - Get all Questrade accounts
get_positions - Get positions for a specific account
get_balances - Get balances for a specific account
get_orders - Get order history for an account

Market Data

search_symbols - Search for symbols by prefix
get_symbol - Get detailed symbol information
get_quotes - Get real-time quotes for symbols
get_candles - Get historical price data

Authentication

refresh_token - Refresh the API access token

Built-in Prompts

The MCP server includes helpful prompts for common trading analysis tasks:

Portfolio Summary

Prompt: portfolio_summary

Get a comprehensive portfolio analysis with account balances, positions, and performance
Optional: Specify accountNumber (uses first account if not provided)

Stock Analysis

Prompt: stock_analysis

Analyze a specific stock with current quotes, symbol information, and recent performance
Required: symbol (e.g., "AAPL", "TSLA", "MSFT")

Trading Opportunities

Prompt: trading_opportunities

Identify potential trading opportunities based on current positions and market data
Optional: accountNumber (uses first account if not provided)
Optional: riskLevel ("conservative", "moderate", or "aggressive")

Example Usage

Simply ask Claude:

"Use the portfolio_summary prompt to analyze my trading account"
"Analyze AAPL stock using the stock_analysis prompt"
"Show me trading opportunities with conservative risk level"

Tool Examples

Get Accounts

{
  "name": "get_accounts"
}

Get Positions

{
  "name": "get_positions",
  "arguments": {
    "accountNumber": "12345678"
  }
}

Search Symbols

{
  "name": "search_symbols",
  "arguments": {
    "prefix": "AAPL",
    "offset": 0
  }
}

Get Quotes

{
  "name": "get_quotes",
  "arguments": {
    "symbolIds": [8049, 9291]
  }
}

Configuration

The server uses environment variables for configuration:

QUESTRADE_API_URL: Base URL for Questrade API (default: https://api01.iq.questrade.com)
QUESTRADE_REFRESH_TOKEN: Your API refresh token
QUESTRADE_TOKEN_DIR: Custom directory for token storage (default: ~/.questrade-mcp)

Error Handling

The server includes comprehensive error handling for:

Invalid or expired tokens (automatic refresh)
Missing required parameters
API rate limits and network errors
Invalid account numbers or symbol IDs

Security Notes

Never commit your .env file to version control
Access tokens expire after 7 days
Refresh tokens are automatically used to get new access tokens
This is an unofficial tool - ensure you comply with Questrade's API terms of service
Always verify trading decisions independently before executing trades

Development

Project Structure

src/
├── index.ts          # Main MCP server implementation
├── questrade-client.ts # Questrade API client
└── types.ts          # TypeScript type definitions

Building

npm run build

Cleaning

npm run clean

License

MIT

Available Tools

9 tools

get_accountsB

Get all Questrade accounts

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No parameters

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states a read operation ('Get') but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, response format, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, directly stating the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema), the description is adequate but has clear gaps. It lacks behavioral context and usage guidelines, which are important even for simple tools, especially with no annotations to provide safety or operational details.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents the absence of inputs. The description doesn't need to add parameter information, and it correctly implies no inputs are required, aligning with the schema.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('all Questrade accounts'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_balances' or 'get_positions', which might also retrieve account-related data, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_balances' or 'get_positions'. The description implies a general retrieval of accounts but doesn't specify context or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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

get_balancesA

Get balances for a specific account. Returns an object keyed by currency showing each currency's holdings in their native denomination — CAD holdings in CAD, USD holdings in USD. Report them separately. To compute a combined total, apply a CAD/USD exchange rate.

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`accountNumber`	Yes	Account number to get balances for

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description effectively discloses return format (object keyed by currency, native denominations) and gives interpretation guidance (report separately, apply FX rate). It is transparent about output behavior, though it omits potential side effects (likely none).

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is three concise sentences. The first sentence states the purpose, and subsequent sentences add essential details without any unnecessary words. Front-loaded and efficient.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

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, no output schema, no annotations), the description is fully adequate. It covers purpose, parameter, output structure, and usage guidance, leaving no obvious gaps for an AI agent.

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 coverage is 100% for the single parameter 'accountNumber', which is described in the schema. The description adds no new parameter-level semantics beyond the schema but provides valuable output context.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states the action 'Get balances' and the resource 'for a specific account'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_positions or get_accounts, as it specifically targets currency holdings.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies when to use the tool (when needing balances for an account) but does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use it or mention alternatives. Context is clear but lacks exclusions.

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

get_candlesC

Get historical candle data for a symbol

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`symbolId`	Yes	Symbol ID to get candles for
`startTime`	Yes	Start time (ISO format)
`endTime`	Yes	End time (ISO format)
`interval`	Yes	Candle interval (OneMinute, FiveMinutes, etc.)

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it 'gets' data, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify if it's safe, has rate limits, requires authentication, or what the output format looks like. This is a significant gap for a data retrieval tool with no structured safety hints.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

Given the complexity of a financial data tool with 4 required parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain return values, error conditions, or behavioral traits like pagination or rate limits. With no annotations to compensate, this leaves critical gaps for effective tool use.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting all four parameters (symbolId, startTime, endTime, interval). The description adds no additional semantic context beyond implying these parameters are used for historical data retrieval. This meets the baseline score when schema coverage is high.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('historical candle data for a symbol'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_quotes' or 'get_symbol', which might also retrieve financial data, leaving some ambiguity about when to choose this specific tool.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_quotes' or 'get_symbol'. It lacks context about prerequisites, such as needing a valid symbol ID, or exclusions, such as not being suitable for real-time data. This leaves the agent without clear usage instructions.

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

get_ordersC

Get orders for a specific account

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`accountNumber`	Yes	Account number to get orders for
`startTime`	No	Start time for order history (ISO format)
`endTime`	No	End time for order history (ISO format)
`stateFilter`	No	Filter orders by state (All, Open, Closed)

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'Get orders' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether it's read-only (implied but not stated), pagination, rate limits, error handling, or what the output looks like. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Get orders') and scope ('for a specific account'). There is no wasted verbiage, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and 4 parameters, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values, error conditions, or behavioral nuances like filtering logic. For a tool with moderate complexity (4 params, no output schema), this minimal description fails to provide sufficient context for effective use.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema fully documents all parameters (accountNumber, startTime, endTime, stateFilter) with descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying account-based filtering, which is already covered in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('orders'), and specifies the scope ('for a specific account'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_accounts or get_positions. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential similar tools (e.g., 'search_orders' if existed), keeping it at 4 rather than 5.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_accounts or get_balances, nor does it mention prerequisites (e.g., authentication) or exclusions. It only states the basic purpose without context for selection among siblings.

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

get_positionsC

Get positions for a specific account

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`accountNumber`	Yes	Account number to get positions for

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions retrieving positions but doesn't specify whether this is a read-only operation, what data format is returned, if there are rate limits, or if authentication is required. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what 'positions' entail (e.g., financial holdings, job roles), the return format, or any behavioral traits like error handling. For a tool with no structured context, more detail is needed to guide effective use.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'accountNumber' clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying that positions are retrieved for an account, which aligns with the schema. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states the action ('Get positions') and target resource ('for a specific account'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'get_accounts' or 'get_balances', which might also relate to account data retrieval.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_balances' or 'get_orders', nor does it mention prerequisites such as authentication or account access. It simply states what the tool does without contextual usage information.

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

get_quotesC

Get market quotes for specific symbols

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`symbolIds`	Yes	Array of symbol IDs to get quotes for

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but offers minimal information. It states what the tool does but doesn't describe response format, rate limits, authentication needs, error conditions, or whether it's a read-only operation. For a financial data tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise at just 7 words, front-loading the core purpose without any wasted words. Every element ('Get', 'market quotes', 'for specific symbols') earns its place by communicating essential information efficiently.

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?

Given the complexity of financial data tools, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what constitutes a 'market quote' (price, volume, bid/ask, etc.), response format, error handling, or real-time versus delayed data. The agent would need to guess important behavioral aspects when invoking this tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'symbolIds' well-documented in the schema as 'Array of symbol IDs to get quotes for'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline score of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('market quotes for specific symbols'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_candles (historical data) and get_symbol (symbol metadata) by focusing on current market quotes. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings, such as get_positions which might also involve quote data.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when-not scenarios, prerequisites, or comparisons with siblings like get_candles for historical data or search_symbols for symbol lookup. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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

get_symbolC

Get detailed information for a specific symbol

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`symbolId`	Yes	Symbol ID to get details for

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves 'detailed information' but doesn't specify what that entails (e.g., metadata, specifications, or real-time data), whether it's a read-only operation, any rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond its basic purpose.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action ('Get detailed information') and resource ('for a specific symbol'), making it easy to parse. There is no wasted language, and it appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool.

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?

Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that retrieves 'detailed information'. It doesn't explain what information is returned (e.g., symbol name, type, market data), potential response formats, or any behavioral traits like caching or errors. For a retrieval tool with no structured support, more context is needed to guide the agent effectively.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'symbolId' clearly documented as 'Symbol ID to get details for'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states the action ('Get detailed information') and resource ('for a specific symbol'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'search_symbols' (which likely searches rather than retrieves specific details) and 'get_quotes' (which might provide pricing data rather than comprehensive details). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings, such as 'get_candles' or 'get_orders', which might also retrieve symbol-related data.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid symbol ID), exclusions (e.g., not for searching or listing symbols), or comparisons to siblings like 'search_symbols' (for finding symbols) or 'get_quotes' (for price data). The agent must infer usage from the name and context alone.

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

refresh_tokenB

Refresh the API access token

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No parameters

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Refresh' implies a mutation operation that likely requires authentication credentials, but the description doesn't specify what happens to the old token, whether this is rate-limited, what permissions are needed, or what the response contains. For a security-sensitive operation with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is perfectly concise at just four words ('Refresh the API access token'). It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, with zero wasted words or unnecessary elaboration.

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 token refresh operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what credentials are needed, what the new token replaces, whether old tokens remain valid, what format the response takes, or potential error conditions. Given the security implications and lack of structured documentation, more context is needed.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description doesn't need to explain parameters since none exist, and it correctly reflects this by not mentioning any inputs.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description 'Refresh the API access token' clearly states the verb ('refresh') and resource ('API access token'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from its siblings (all financial data retrieval tools), which would require a 5.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (like when tokens expire), frequency recommendations, or error conditions that might trigger its use. Without any usage context, agents must infer when token refreshing is needed.

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

search_symbolsC

Search for symbols by prefix

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`prefix`	Yes	Symbol prefix to search for (e.g., "AAPL")
`offset`	No	Offset for pagination (default: 0)

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the search action but doesn't describe what 'symbols' refer to (e.g., financial instruments, programming symbols), the search scope (e.g., partial matches, case sensitivity), return format, pagination behavior beyond the offset parameter, or any rate limits or authentication requirements. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely interacts with financial or technical data.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise with a single, clear sentence that front-loads the core functionality. There's no wasted language or redundancy, making it efficient for quick understanding.

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?

Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a search tool. It doesn't explain what 'symbols' are in this context (e.g., stock symbols, currency pairs), the expected return format, or how results are structured (e.g., list of objects with fields). This leaves the agent with insufficient information to use the tool effectively beyond basic parameter passing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The description mentions 'by prefix' which aligns with the 'prefix' parameter in the schema, but adds no additional semantic context beyond what the schema already provides (100% coverage). The schema fully describes both parameters, including the offset's pagination role and default value, so the description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to given the high schema coverage.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('symbols'), and specifies the search method ('by prefix'). However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'get_symbol', which might retrieve a single symbol rather than searching multiple symbols by prefix.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_symbol' or other sibling tools. There's no mention of use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the tool name alone.

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

Tool Schema Changelog

Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

9 tool updatesJan 27, 2026
- First observedget_accounts
- First observedget_balances
- First observedget_candles
- First observedget_orders
- First observedget_positions
- First observedget_quotes
- First observedget_symbol
- First observedrefresh_token
- First observedsearch_symbols

Deploy Server

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Scored 2026-06-12 22:30 across 9 tools

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct aspect: accounts, balances, candles, orders, positions, quotes, symbol info, token refresh, and symbol search. No overlapping functionality.

Naming Consistency4/5

7 of 9 tools use the 'get_' prefix, but 'refresh_token' and 'search_symbols' break the pattern. The naming is mostly consistent but has minor deviations.

Tool Count5/5

9 tools is well-scoped for a trading data server, covering essential read operations without being overwhelming.

Completeness4/5

Covers core read operations (accounts, balances, orders, positions, quotes, candles, symbol info) and token management. Missing trade execution and order modification, but may be intentional for a read-only API.

Maintenance

ActivityInactive

ResponsivenessNo issues

Resources

Need Help?

Reddit Discussion

Related Servers

Related MCP Connectors

OctagonOAuth
com.octagonagents.mcp
The Octagon MCP server provides specialized AI-powered financial research and analysis by integrating with the Octagon Market Intelligence API. It enables users to analyze public market data (SEC filings, earnings transcripts, financial metrics, and stock data for 8000+ companies), private market data (3M+ companies, 500k+ funding rounds, 2M+ M&A/IPO transactions), and conduct deep research including web scraping capabilities. The server also features autonomous research agents that search hundreds of sources and return fully cited reports in approximately one minute.
Finance Research & Data Web Scraping
2
gainium-mcpOAuth
io.gainium
MCP server for Gainium — manage trading bots, deals, and balances via AI assistants
Cryptocurrency Finance
22
stocksense-ai
io.github.doc2mcp
MCP server for stocksense-ai documentation, generated by doc2mcp.
Documentation Access Finance
24
thoughtsOAuth
ai.thoughtbox.api
An MCP server that provides read access to your cloud storage providers, bank accounts and more.
Cloud Storage Finance
2

Related MCP Servers

Alpha Vantage MCP Server
Finance Cryptocurrency
deepsuthar496
A
license
A
quality
D
maintenance
An MCP server that provides real-time financial data integration with Alpha Vantage's API, enabling access to stock market data, cryptocurrency prices, forex rates, and technical indicators.
Updated a year ago (2025-07-26 03:43 UTC)
7
5
4
MIT
Finance Tools MCP
Finance Research & Data
VoxLink-org
A
license
B
quality
D
maintenance
An MCP server that provides comprehensive financial insights and analysis by leveraging real-time market data, news, and advanced analytics for stocks, options, financial statements, and economic indicators.
Updated a year ago (2025-09-13 17:52 UTC)
17
51
Python
MIT
Public.com MCP Serverofficial
Finance Cryptocurrency
PublicDotCom
A
license
A
quality
A
maintenance
This MCP server connects AI assistants to a Public.com brokerage account, enabling natural language trading of stocks, options, and crypto, along with portfolio management, quotes, and orders.
Updated 2 days ago (2026-09-10 19:37 UTC)
37
65
Apache 2.0
ibkr-mcp
Finance Research & Data
jeffbai996
F
license
Not graded
quality
B
maintenance
An MCP server that turns Interactive Brokers into a question-answering portfolio analyst.
Updated 8 days ago (2026-09-05 05:02 UTC)
4
-

Questrade MCP Server

Features

Installation

Option 1: Install from npm (Recommended)

Option 2: Clone and Build

Getting Questrade API Credentials

Step 1: Generate API Token

Step 2: Configure Environment

Step 3: Test Your Setup

Usage

Development

Production

Adding to Claude Desktop

Available Tools

Account Management

Market Data

Authentication

Built-in Prompts

Portfolio Summary

Stock Analysis

Trading Opportunities

Example Usage

Tool Examples

Get Accounts

Get Positions

Search Symbols

Get Quotes

Configuration

Error Handling

Security Notes

Development

Project Structure

Building

Cleaning

License

Available Tools

Tool Schema Changelog

Maintenance

Resources

Related MCP Connectors

Related MCP Servers

Public.com MCP Serverofficial