Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
AkTools MCP Server

AkTools MCP Server

by fastmcp-me
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

获取股票历史价格

stock_prices

Retrieve historical stock prices and technical indicators for Shanghai, Shenzhen, Hong Kong, and US markets using symbol, market, period, and limit parameters.

Instructions

根据股票代码和市场获取股票历史价格及技术指标, 不支持加密货币

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "symbol": "<symbol>"
    },
    "name": "stock_prices"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNo返回数量(int)
marketNo股票市场，仅支持: sh(上证), sz(深证), hk(港股), us(美股), 不支持加密货币sh
periodNo周期，如: daily(日线), weekly(周线，不支持美股)daily
symbolYes股票代码

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.14

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
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 discloses only one limitation (no crypto support) and does not describe return format, error behavior, or required permissions. This is minimal behavioral disclosure.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the core purpose. It contains no waste and is easily parsed.

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 lack of output schema and annotations, the description should clarify return structure. It only mentions historical prices and technical indicators, but not the format or specifics. Still, for a straightforward price-fetching tool, this is minimally adequate.

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 provides 100% coverage of all 4 parameters with clear descriptions. The tool description adds little beyond referencing symbol and market, so it does not enhance parameter semantics.

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 it retrieves stock historical prices and technical indicators based on symbol and market. It also notes crypto is not supported, which distinguishes it from cryptocurrency tools. However, it does not differentiate from sibling stock indicator tools, so it lacks sibling differentiation.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies the primary use case (fetching historical prices/indicators) and explicitly excludes cryptocurrency. It does not mention alternatives or when to use other sibling tools like stock_indicators_a. This leaves some ambiguity about tool selection.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools