Skip to main content
Glama
enesjakozh
ferdousbhai

WSB Analyst MCP Server

by ferdousbhai
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

WSB 分析员 MCP 服务器

铁匠徽章

模型上下文协议 (MCP) 服务器提供实时 WallStreetBets 数据，以供 Claude 或其他 LLM 客户端进行分析。

特征

  • 获取 WallStreetBets 帖子：按分数、评论数和内容类型过滤帖子

  • 详细帖子分析：从帖子中提取评论、链接和元数据

  • 外部链接收集：收集 WSB 讨论中分享的链接

  • 分析模板：用于市场分析的即用提示模板

  • 进度报告：数据收集期间的实时进度更新

  • MCP 集成：与 Claude Desktop 和其他 MCP 客户端无缝集成

Related MCP server: MCP Reddit Server

要求

  • Python 3.12 或更高版本

  • Reddit API 凭证

  • Claude Desktop或其他 MCP 客户端

安装

通过 Smithery 安装

要通过Smithery自动为 Claude Desktop 安装 WSB Analyst：

npx -y @smithery/cli install @ferdousbhai/wsb-analyst-mcp --client claude

克隆此存储库或下载源文件：

git clone https://github.com/ferdousbhai/wsb-analyst-mcp
cd wsb-analyst-mcp

创建虚拟环境并安装依赖项：

# Using uv (recommended)
uv sync

设置 Reddit API 凭证

要使用此服务器，您需要创建一个 Reddit 应用程序来获取 API 凭证：

  1. 登录您的Reddit帐户

  2. 导航至https://www.reddit.com/prefs/apps

  3. 向下滚动并单击“创建另一个应用程序...”或“创建应用程序...”

  4. 填写以下详细信息：

    • 姓名：WSB 分析师 MCP（或您喜欢的任何名称）

    • 应用程序类型：选择“脚本”

    • 描述：应用程序的可选描述

    • 关于网址：可以留空

    • 重定向 uri ：使用http://localhost:8000 （任何有效的 URL 都可以，因为我们不使用 OAuth）

  5. 点击“创建应用”

  6. 创建完成后，记下：

    • client_id ：应用程序名称下的字符串（出现在“个人使用脚本”下方）

    • client_secret ：标记为“secret”的字符串

Claude Desktop 的配置

打开Claude Desktop的配置文件：

  • macOS： ~/Library/Application Support/Claude/claude_desktop_config.json

  • Windows： %APPDATA%\Claude\claude_desktop_config.json

添加以下配置（根据需要调整路径）：

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "wsb-analyst": {
      "command": "uvx",
      "args": [
        "run",
        "wsb-analyst"
      ],
      "env": {
        "REDDIT_CLIENT_ID": "your_client_id_here",
        "REDDIT_CLIENT_SECRET": "your_client_secret_here"
      }
    }
  }
}

重启Claude桌面

与 Claude Desktop 一起使用

配置完成后，您可以通过 Claude 与 WSB Analyst 服务器进行交互：

  1. 打开 Claude 桌面

  2. 您应该在消息输入框的右下角看到一个锤子图标

  3. 点击锤子查看可用的工具

  4. 通过斜线命令访问提示模板（例如， /analyze_wsb_market ）

示例查询：

  • “今天 WallStreetBets 上最热门的股票有哪些？”

  • “分析最近的 WallStreetBets 帖子并告诉我潜在的市场机会”

  • “WSB 用户分享了哪些有关 AMD 股票的外部资源？”

可用工具

find_top_posts

根据标准获取并过滤 WSB 帖子。

参数：

  • min_score （默认值：100）：所需的最低分数（赞成票数）

  • min_comments （默认值：10）：所需的最少评论数

  • limit （默认值：10）：返回的最大帖子数

  • excluded_flairs （默认值： ["Meme", "Shitpost", "Gain", "Loss"] ）：要排除的帖子标签列表。

fetch_post_details

获取有关特定 WSB 帖子的详细信息，包括热门评论。

参数：

  • post_id ：Reddit 帖子 ID

fetch_batch_post_details

有效地获取多个帖子的详细信息。

fetch_detailed_wsb_posts

获取并过滤 WSB 帖子，然后获取详细信息，包括每个帖子的热门评论和链接。

get_external_links

收集热门帖子的所有外部链接。

get_trending_tickers

识别并返回最近 WSB 热门帖子中经常提及或讨论的股票代码列表。

提示模板

/analyze_wsb_market

提供模板提示，指导法学硕士 (LLM) 使用可用工具 ( fetch_detailed_wsb_posts 、 get_external_links ) 进行全面的市场分析。它指导法学硕士 (LLM) 分析的结构和重点。

/find_market_movers

创建一个专注于特定股票或整体市场走势的提示。此提示将指导法学硕士 (LLM) 使用find_top_posts和fetch_post_details或fetch_batch_post_details等工具。

与 Firecrawl MCP 服务器集成

为了增强分析能力，尤其是在处理 WSB 帖子中的外部链接时，您可以将此服务器与Firecrawl MCP 服务器集成。这样，您的 LLM 代理不仅可以识别 WSB 上共享的链接，还可以抓取和分析这些链接页面的内容。

执照

麻省理工学院

Available Tools

6 tools
fetch_batch_post_detailsC
Fetch details for multiple posts efficiently.

Args:
    post_ids: List of Reddit post IDs

Returns:
    Dictionary with details for all requested posts
ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
post_idsYes

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but provides minimal behavioral context. It states it fetches details efficiently but doesn't disclose rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or what happens if some post IDs are invalid. This is inadequate for a tool with no 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.

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is appropriately brief with three sentences that are front-loaded (purpose first, then args, then returns). No wasted words, though the structure could be slightly improved by integrating usage context.

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, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on return format (beyond 'dictionary'), error cases, performance characteristics, and differentiation from siblings, making it insufficient for reliable tool selection.

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 0%, but the description adds basic meaning by specifying 'post_ids' as 'List of Reddit post IDs'. However, it doesn't clarify format constraints, size limits, or provide examples, leaving significant gaps in parameter understanding.

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 specific verbs ('fetch details') and resource ('multiple posts'), and mentions efficiency. However, it doesn't distinguish this batch operation from the sibling 'fetch_post_details' tool, which likely fetches single posts.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'fetch_post_details' or 'fetch_detailed_wsb_posts'. The description mentions efficiency for multiple posts but doesn't specify thresholds or exclusions.

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

fetch_detailed_wsb_postsB
Fetch and filter WSB posts, then get detailed information including top comments and links for each.

Args:
    min_score: Minimum score (upvotes) required
    min_comments: Minimum number of comments required
    limit: Maximum number of posts to return
    excluded_flairs: List of post flairs to exclude. Defaults to ["Meme", "Shitpost", "Gain", "Loss"].

Returns:
    A dictionary with detailed data for the filtered posts.
ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
min_scoreNo
min_commentsNo
limitNo
excluded_flairsNo

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
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 mentions fetching, filtering, and returning detailed data but lacks critical information: whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, data freshness, error handling, or what 'detailed information' specifically includes beyond comments and links. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is well-structured and appropriately sized. It starts with a clear purpose statement, followed by an 'Args' section with parameter explanations and a 'Returns' section. Each sentence adds value without redundancy. However, the 'Returns' section is somewhat vague ('A dictionary with detailed data'), which slightly reduces efficiency.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate basics: purpose and parameter semantics. However, it lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., read-only status, rate limits), output structure beyond 'dictionary', and differentiation from sibling tools. For a tool with 4 parameters and no structured metadata, this is minimally viable but leaves gaps in usage context.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides clear semantics for all four parameters: 'min_score' as minimum upvotes, 'min_comments' as minimum comment count, 'limit' as maximum posts to return, and 'excluded_flairs' with default values and purpose. This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't explain parameter interactions or validation rules.

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: 'Fetch and filter WSB posts, then get detailed information including top comments and links for each.' This specifies the verb (fetch and filter), resource (WSB posts), and scope (detailed information with comments and links). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'fetch_batch_post_details' or 'fetch_post_details' beyond mentioning 'detailed information'.

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. With sibling tools like 'find_top_posts' and 'get_top_trending_tickers' available, there's no indication of how this tool differs in use cases, prerequisites, or appropriate contexts. The description only explains what the tool does, not when to choose it.

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

fetch_post_detailsB
Fetch detailed information about a specific WSB post including top comments. Caches results for 5 minutes.

Args:
    post_id: Reddit post ID

Returns:
    Detailed post data including comments and extracted links
ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
post_idYes

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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 caching behavior ('Caches results for 5 minutes'), which is useful context beyond basic functionality. However, it lacks details on error handling, rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens if the post_id is invalid.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated first, followed by caching info and parameter/return details. Every sentence adds value, though the structure could be slightly improved by integrating caching into the main sentence for better flow.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description does a decent job by explaining the parameter and return value in general terms. However, for a tool with caching and potential complexity in returns, it should provide more detail on output structure, error cases, or limitations to be fully complete.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, the description adds significant value by explaining that 'post_id' is a 'Reddit post ID', clarifying its format and source. This compensates well for the lack of schema documentation, though it could specify format constraints like length or pattern.

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 ('Fetch') and resource ('detailed information about a specific WSB post including top comments'), making the purpose explicit. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its siblings like 'fetch_detailed_wsb_posts' or 'fetch_batch_post_details', which likely have overlapping functionality.

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. With siblings like 'fetch_batch_post_details' and 'fetch_detailed_wsb_posts', there's no indication of differences in scope, filtering, or use cases, leaving the agent without contextual direction.

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

find_top_postsB
Fetch and filter WSB posts based on criteria. Caches results for 5 minutes.

Args:
    min_score: Minimum score (upvotes) required
    min_comments: Minimum number of comments required
    limit: Maximum number of posts to return
    excluded_flairs: List of post flairs to exclude. Defaults to ["Meme", "Shitpost", "Gain", "Loss"].

Returns:
    A dictionary with filtered posts data
ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
min_scoreNo
min_commentsNo
limitNo
excluded_flairsNo

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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 usefully mentions the 5-minute caching behavior, which is valuable operational context. However, it doesn't address other important behavioral aspects like error handling, rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens when no posts match criteria.

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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement upfront, followed by well-organized parameter explanations in an 'Args' section and a 'Returns' section. Every sentence adds value with no wasted words, making it easy to scan and understand.

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?

For a tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description does an adequate job explaining the parameters and caching behavior. However, it lacks information about return format details (beyond 'dictionary with filtered posts data'), error conditions, and how it differs from sibling tools, leaving some gaps in understanding.

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 description provides clear semantic meaning for all 4 parameters beyond what the schema offers (which has 0% description coverage). It explains what 'min_score' and 'min_comments' represent, clarifies that 'limit' controls maximum returns, and provides the default excluded flairs with examples. This compensates well for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 ('Fetch and filter WSB posts') and the resource ('WSB posts'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from its siblings like 'fetch_detailed_wsb_posts' or 'get_top_trending_tickers', which appear to operate on similar 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 its siblings. While it mentions caching behavior, it doesn't specify scenarios where this filtering approach is preferred over alternatives like 'fetch_detailed_wsb_posts' or 'get_top_trending_tickers'.

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.

  1. 6 tool updates
    • First observedfetch_batch_post_details
    • First observedfetch_detailed_wsb_posts
    • First observedfetch_post_details
    • First observedfind_top_posts
    • First observedget_external_links
    • First observedget_top_trending_tickers
Deploy Server
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Scored across 6 tools

Disambiguation2/5

There is significant overlap between tools, particularly fetch_detailed_wsb_posts and find_top_posts which both fetch and filter WSB posts with identical parameters, causing confusion. Additionally, fetch_batch_post_details and fetch_post_details both retrieve post details, though one handles multiple IDs and the other a single ID, which could be consolidated into a single tool with an optional list parameter.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names follow a consistent snake_case pattern with clear verb_noun structures (e.g., fetch_post_details, get_external_links), making them readable and predictable. However, the naming is not perfectly consistent as some tools use 'fetch' while others use 'get' for similar actions, which is a minor deviation.

Tool Count4/5

With 6 tools, the count is reasonable for a server focused on WSB analysis, covering post fetching, filtering, link extraction, and ticker trending. It is slightly under-scoped as it could benefit from additional tools for deeper analysis or data manipulation, but the core functionality is adequately represented.

Completeness3/5

The toolset covers key aspects like fetching posts, extracting links, and getting trending tickers, but there are notable gaps. For example, there is no tool for updating or deleting data, and advanced features such as sentiment analysis or historical data tracking are missing, which limits comprehensive analysis workflows.

Maintenance

ActivityInactive
ResponsivenessNo issues

Resources

Related MCP Connectors

Related MCP Servers

  • StockFlow MCP Server

    twolven
    A
    license
    B
    quality
    B
    maintenance
    A Model Context Protocol server providing real-time stock data and options analysis through Yahoo Finance, enabling LLMs to access market data, analyze stocks, and evaluate options strategies.
    3
    27
    MIT

  • MCP Reddit Server

    wllcnm
    A
    license
    Not graded
    quality
    D
    maintenance
    A Model Context Protocol server that enables AI assistants like Claude to browse and analyze Reddit content, including searching subreddits, retrieving post details with comments, and viewing trending posts.
    10
    MIT

  • Schwab Model Context Protocol

    jkoelker
    A
    license
    Not graded
    quality
    A
    maintenance
    A server that implements the Model Context Protocol for Schwab API, allowing access to account information, positions, stock quotes, and order/transaction history designed for integration with Large Language Models.
    62
    MIT

  • sellthenews-mcp

    swl007007
    F
    license
    B
    quality
    F
    maintenance
    A read-only MCP server that provides access to financial news, Wall Street Bets sentiment analysis, and detailed options data from sellthenews.org. It enables LLMs to retrieve real-time news feeds, search historical data, and analyze options chains or Greek exposure for specific tickers.
    5
    -

Appeared in Searches