projectx-mcp

Get contract

get_contract

Read-only

Look up a futures contract by ID to get tick size, tick value, and whether it is the active month.

Instructions

Look up one contract by ID (tick size, tick value, whether it is the active month).

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": {
      "contractId": "<contractId>"
    },
    "name": "get_contract"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`contractId`	Yes	Contract ID, e.g. "CON.F.US.MNQ.Z25". Get it from search_contracts.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 26, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds cardinality ('one contract') and specific returned fields, but does not disclose error behavior or what happens for an invalid ID. This is acceptable but not rich behavioral context.

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?

A single, tight sentence that front-loads the action and resource while packing the relevant returned attributes into a parenthetical. There is no filler or repeated title text.

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 simple one-parameter lookup with read-only annotations, the description and schema provide enough for correct invocation. The absence of an output schema is partially mitigated by listing the returned fields, though the full return shape is not disclosed.

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 100%, so the parameter is fully documented in the schema. The parameter description adds real value beyond the schema by providing a concrete example ID and telling the agent to source it from search_contracts.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb ('Look up'), a specific resource ('one contract by ID'), and the key returned attributes (tick size, tick value, active month). This clearly differentiates it from list/search contract tools and leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The parameter description gives explicit workflow guidance: contractId should be obtained from search_contracts. The phrase 'by ID' makes it clear this is for resolving a known contract rather than discovering contracts, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions.

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