Retrieve post-market trade activity for a stock symbol, including trade prices, sizes, and timestamps to analyze after-hours trading.
Track real-time trading activity occurring after regular market hours with the FMP Aftermarket Trade API. Access key details such as trade prices, sizes, and timestamps for trades executed during the post-market session.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| symbol | Yes | Stock symbol |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.9.0Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falseDoes the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds that data is real-time and post-market, and that returned details include prices, sizes, and timestamps, but it does not discuss rate limits, pagination, data freshness, or response shape beyond those fields.
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, front-loaded with the tool's purpose and followed by the key data fields returned. The mention of 'FMP Aftermarket Trade API' is somewhat redundant branding, but otherwise there is little wasted wording.
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 one-parameter read-only tool with full schema coverage and annotations covering safety, the description is nearly sufficient. Its main gap is failing to distinguish this tool from quote-oriented and batch siblings, which matters given the large sibling set.
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% and there is only one parameter (symbol), so the schema already fully documents the input. The description does not add format guidance, exchange/suffix conventions, or examples for the symbol beyond what the schema provides; 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 names a specific verb ('Track') and resource ('aftermarket trading activity'), and states it covers post-market trades with prices, sizes, and timestamps. It does not differentiate this tool from close siblings such as getAftermarketQuote or getBatchAftermarketTrade, leaving the trade-vs-quote distinction implicit.
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?
Usage is only implied by 'after regular market hours' and 'post-market session'; there is no explicit guidance on when to use this instead of getAftermarketQuote, getQuote, or getBatchAftermarketTrade. No prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative-selection criteria are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.