Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
ibkr-mcp

ibkr-mcp

by jgalea
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

lookup_contract

Resolve any ticker symbol or conId to a fully qualified Interactive Brokers contract with exchange, currency, and security type details.

Instructions

Resolve a symbol to a fully qualified IB contract (conId, exchange, etc.).

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": "lookup_contract"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
symbolYesTicker symbol or numeric conId
currencyNoUSD
exchangeNoSMART
sec_typeNoSTK

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.4.1

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It only states that the tool resolves a symbol to a fully qualified contract, but does not disclose error behavior, required permissions, rate limits, or idempotency. The behavioral insight is minimal.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is a single sentence with no fluff, but it is too brief given that there are four parameters and an output schema. It earns its place but lacks detail, so it's adequate but not excellent.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so return values are documented elsewhere. However, the description omits context like what 'fully qualified' means and how conId input works. With low schema coverage, the description could be more complete, but it meets a minimal threshold.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is only 25% (only symbol has a description). The description adds no additional meaning for currency, exchange, or sec_type parameters beyond what the schema provides with defaults. It fails to compensate for the low 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 uses a specific verb 'Resolve' and resource 'symbol to fully qualified IB contract', indicating a clear lookup operation. It distinguishes from siblings like get_quote and get_positions, but does not explicitly differentiate from search_contracts which may have similar 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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any when-not-to-use or prerequisites. The description only states what it does without contextual usage advice.

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