marketdata-mcp

Market data: batch stock prices

stock_prices

Fetches prices for multiple tickers at once and cross-checks each against TradingView and Finviz, labeling whether both, one, or neither source confirmed the quote.

Instructions

Dual-sourced prices for several tickers at once.

Each ticker is looked up on both TradingView's scanner and Finviz's screener; the per-row data_provider says whether that particular ticker was confirmed by both, by one, or by neither.

Args: tickers: Comma-separated symbols, e.g. "AAPL,MSFT,NVDA".

Returns: Envelope whose data is a list of rows, each with symbol, price, change_percent and its own data_provider.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`tickers`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Nov 4, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose a genuinely non-obvious trait: each ticker is checked against two independent providers and the per-row data_provider records confirmation status. It does not cover failure modes such as invalid or delisted tickers, partial failures, or rate limits.

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?

Front-loaded with the core behavior, then Args and Returns sections; every sentence carries information. The Returns section partially duplicates the existing output schema, which is the only wasted space.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a one-parameter batch read tool with an output schema present, the description supplies what the schema cannot: the dual-source verification model and the meaning of data_provider. Only error/edge-case behavior is left unaddressed.

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 coverage is 0% and the single parameter has only a title, so the description must compensate; it does so with an explicit format example ('AAPL,MSFT,NVDA') and the statement that the value is comma-separated. That resolves the main ambiguity of how to pass multiple symbols.

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?

States a concrete verb and resource: 'Dual-sourced prices for several tickers at once,' plus the mechanism (TradingView scanner and Finviz screener). This clearly separates it from a single-symbol lookup like stock_quote, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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 phrase 'several tickers at once' implies batch usage, but there is no explicit when-to-use / when-not-to-use guidance and no routing to stock_quote (single symbol) or stock_screener (filtering). An agent must infer the choice from the name alone.

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