io.github.kcw2034/toss-invest-mcp

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct resource: market data tools for orderbook, prices, trades, candles, etc., and account/order tools for holdings, buying power, and order lifecycle. There is no overlap between get_orderbook, get_trades, get_prices, or get_order, and list_orders vs get_order are clearly list/detail.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with verbs get, list, create, modify, and cancel. While list_orders uses 'list' instead of 'get', the pattern is predictable and uniform across the set.
Tool Count4/5
20 tools is slightly above the ideal range, but the server covers two clear domains: market data (10 tools) and account/order management (10 tools). Each tool serves a distinct purpose, so the count feels justified rather than bloated.
Completeness5/5
The tool set covers the full trading lifecycle: market data retrieval, account information, and order management with create, modify, cancel, and query. No critical gaps exist; even sellable quantity and buying power are provided to support order placement.
Average 3.3/5 across 20 of 20 tools scored. Lowest: 2.7/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 19 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely says 'Get trading commissions' which is a tautology of the tool name. It doesn't mention side effects, return format, rate limits, authentication needs, or any other behavioral traits.
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 extremely concise with only one short sentence and no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the key verb and resource, though it could arguably be too brief to be useful.
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?
The tool is simple but the description is insufficiently complete. There is no output schema, so return values are undefined. No usage context, no mention of what trading commissions are, and no alternative guidance. The overall picture is incomplete for an agent to know when and how to invoke it correctly.
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?
The schema already documents account_id with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, but it doesn't need to since the schema is sufficient.
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 says 'Get trading commissions' which clearly identifies the action and resource. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings, but the resource 'commissions' is distinct from order book, prices, trades, etc., so the purpose is reasonably clear.
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. The only context given is the optional account_id parameter's fallback behavior, but there is no mention of prerequisites, use cases, or exclusion criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description alone must disclose behavioral traits such as side effects, permissions, or return format. However, it merely restates the tool's purpose ('Get order detail') without adding any 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no unnecessary words. While it is very brief, it earns its place by stating the core purpose, but it could include more useful context without becoming verbose.
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?
The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description should explain what 'order detail' includes and any behavioral nuances like the account_id fallback. It fails to do so, leaving a new agent under-informed about the tool's behavior.
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 coverage is 100%, so both order_id and account_id are fully described in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 identifies the action ('Get') and the resource ('order detail'). It implies fetching a single order's details, which distinguishes it from list_orders, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.
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 related tools like list_orders or get_orderbook. There are no preconditions, exclusions, or context hints, leaving the agent to guess the tool's appropriate use case.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only restates the tool's purpose and does not mention output format, pagination, or the impact of parameters like adjusted and before.
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 a single sentence with no unnecessary words, making it concise. However, it is so minimal that it adds little value beyond the tool name, though it is not overly verbose.
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 there is no output schema and no annotations, the description should compensate by explaining expected return values and behavior. It does not, leaving the agent to infer critical details about candle data and parameter interactions.
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?
The input schema already provides descriptions for all five parameters (symbol, interval, count, before, adjusted), achieving 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parametric meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 fetches candlestick chart data, a specific resource. It is not explicitly differentiated from sibling tools like get_prices or get_trades, but the resource is unique enough to avoid confusion.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks context about use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without decision support.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It does not mention whether it returns current or historical rates, how errors (e.g., invalid currency codes) are handled, whether data is real-time or delayed, or any rate limits. The only behavioral cue is 'Get', which implies read-only, but that is not explicitly stated.
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 very concise: 'Get the exchange rate (환율).' It is front-loaded and contains no filler. The Korean translation is redundant but not distracting. For such a simple tool, a one-sentence description is appropriately sized, though it could have slightly more detail without losing conciseness.
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 simple read tool, the description plus schema gives a basic understanding. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the agent lacks information about the return value's structure (e.g., numeric rate vs. nested object) and the effect of the optional date_time parameter on the output. It is adequate but not complete.
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?
The input schema provides descriptions for all parameters (base_currency, quote_currency, date_time) and covers 100% of them. The description adds no additional parameter context, e.g., format of currency codes or the meaning of date_time. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 states a clear action ('Get') and resource ('exchange rate'), differentiating it from siblings like get_orderbook or get_prices. However, it lacks specificity about the currency pair (base/quote), though the schema supplies that. It is not merely a tautology and conveys the core function.
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. It does not mention any prerequisites, intended scenarios, or situations where other market data tools (e.g., get_prices) would be more appropriate. The usage is only implied by the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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. It states 'Get company master data' which implies a read-only operation, but it does not disclose return format, data fields, or any limitations. The vague 'basic stock info' adds little 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence with no wasted words. The Korean parenthetical adds slight redundancy but does not harm clarity.
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?
With no output schema and only a one-line description, the tool is underspecified. It does not explain what 'master data' includes, how symbols should be formatted (e.g., exchange prefix), or what the response looks like. Given the simplicity of the tool, more detail is expected.
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?
The schema already fully documents the single parameter 'symbols' as 'Comma-separated symbols' (100% coverage). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 'Get' with a clear resource 'company master data / basic stock info' (종목 기본 정보). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_prices and get_orderbook, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_prices or get_trades. The description does not mention context or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. However, it only restates the tool's function and does not mention pagination (cursor/limit), default account fallback, or read-only nature, missing an opportunity to provide safety and usage context.
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 a single short sentence, which is efficient and front-loaded. However, it is almost too sparse, but no words are wasted.
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 5 parameters (1 required), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It fails to explain pagination, the meaning of the status filter, or the default account behavior, leaving the agent under-informed for correct invocation.
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?
The schema already documents all five parameters with descriptions and defaults, achieving 100% coverage. The description adds no extra parameter meaning, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
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 states 'List orders / order history' which is a specific verb (list) and resource (orders). It clearly indicates this tool retrieves multiple orders, distinguishing from sibling get_order which suggests a single order, though not explicitly.
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 like get_order, create_order, or get_trades. It neither states use cases nor exclusions, leaving the agent to infer from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'List' implying a read operation, but provides no information about return format, required authentication, or potential variations in account types. This is minimal transparency.
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 extremely concise, consisting of a single sentence with no filler. The key information is front-loaded, and the addition of the Korean translation is a minor enhancement. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.
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 the absence of annotations and an output schema, the description carries full responsibility for contextual completeness. It merely states the action without elaborating on what constitutes an 'account', what data is returned, or how it relates to other tools. This is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's output.
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 tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100% (empty schema). Per guidelines, baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description adds nothing beyond what's already implicit. No parameter explanation is needed.
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 states a specific verb-resource combination: 'List the user's accounts'. It clearly indicates the tool retrieves account data, and the Korean translation adds clarity. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish 'accounts' from related concepts like holdings or balances, which could be ambiguous.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_holdings or get_buying_power. No use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It does not mention read-only behavior, account dependencies, or what the returned quantity represents. It fails to explain that the result may vary by account_id, which is a significant behavioral aspect.
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 a single, concise sentence with no fluff. It is front-loaded with the key action and resource, making it easy to scan. Every word earns its place.
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?
For a tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is sparse. It does not explain the return format, how account_id affects results, or any limitations. Given that the tool has multiple parameters and sits among many related tools, this brevity leaves important context unaddressed.
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 100%, so both parameters are already documented. The description adds no additional meaning beyond naming the symbol parameter, and it completely ignores the account_id parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 clearly states the tool retrieves the sellable quantity for a symbol, using a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('sellable quantity'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_holdings or get_orderbook, which serve different purposes. The inclusion of the Korean term (판매 가능 수량) adds clarity for localized contexts.
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 such as get_holdings or get_stocks. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions. The usage is only implied by the tool's name and basic description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only restates the tool's name. It does not indicate whether the operation is read-only, how currency affects results, or any other 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?
The description is a single, direct sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose without extraneous words. It is appropriately sized for a simple getter tool.
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 is simple with two well-documented parameters, but the description lacks context about the return value or typical use cases. While it is minimally viable, a note on when buying power is checked (e.g., before orders) would improve completeness.
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?
The input schema documents both parameters with clear descriptions (e.g., 'Currency, e.g. KRW or USD' and 'falls back to TOSS_DEFAULT_ACCOUNT'), giving 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so it meets the baseline.
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 clearly states the primary function with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('available buying power'). The term 'buying power' is unique among sibling tools, distinguishing it from similar getters like get_sellable_quantity or get_holdings.
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. It does not mention related tools like get_sellable_quantity or order placement contexts, leaving the agent to infer usage 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.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only restates the tool name. It does not explain what the calendar contains (e.g., operating days, holidays), what the return format is, or how the optional date parameter affects the response. The read-only nature is implied by 'get' but not explicitly stated, and no additional behavioral context is given.
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 a single, concise sentence that immediately conveys the core function. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, and every word contributes to the meaning. No redundancy or unnecessary details.
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 the simple nature of the tool (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description is minimally viable but not fully complete. It tells what the tool does but lacks information about the response shape or the effect of the date parameter beyond the schema. The agent can infer some behavior from the name, but there are gaps for a fully informed invocation.
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 100% for the single 'date' parameter, which includes format (YYYY-MM-DD) and optionality. The description does not add any parameter-specific information, but since the schema is comprehensive, the baseline of 3 applies.
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 clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'KR market operating calendar', which distinguishes it from its sibling get_market_calendar_us. The addition of the Korean term in parentheses reinforces the resource. This is a specific and unambiguous purpose.
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. It does not mention that it is for the Korean market specifically, nor does it reference the sibling get_market_calendar_us. There is no context about expected usage or prerequisites, leaving the agent without decision-making guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It simply restates the tool's purpose without mentioning any traits such as real-time vs delayed data, authentication requirements, rate limits, or the exact response format. This adds minimal value beyond the tool name.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the essential purpose without any fluff. Every word earns its place.
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 is simple with one well-documented parameter, but the description does not mention what the response contains (e.g., symbol-to-price mapping, whether prices are bid/ask/last) or any caveats. This leaves gaps for an agent, especially in absence of an output schema.
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?
The schema description for the 'symbols' parameter is already specific (comma-separated, examples) and covers 100% of parameters. The tool description adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond the redundant 'one or more symbols' phrase, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 clearly states the specific action (Get), the resource (current prices), and the scope (one or more symbols). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_orderbook and get_trades, which focus on other market 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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention alternatives like get_candles for historical data or get_orderbook for depth. Usage is only implied by the tool's name and purpose.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 only states 'Get' which implies a read operation, but it does not explicitly confirm read-only behavior, mention rate limits, pagination, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation support.
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 a single, clear sentence that front-loads the action and object. It has no wasted words and is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.
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 simple one-parameter tool, the description is minimally viable: it states what it does and for which input. However, it lacks context about the returned data, usage scenarios, and behavioral safety. Given no output schema and no annotations, a bit more detail would improve completeness, but the current level is acceptable for a basic getter.
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?
The input schema has one parameter (symbol) with full description coverage (100%). The description adds no extra meaning beyond 'for a symbol', so the baseline score of 3 applies. It does not clarify input formats or provide examples, but the schema already documents the parameter adequately.
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 'Get buy-caution warnings (매수 유의사항) for a symbol' clearly identifies the specific verb (Get), the resource (buy-caution warnings), and the scope (for a symbol). It is distinct from sibling tools like get_prices or get_orderbook, so purpose clarity is excellent.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any prerequisites, context, or exclusions. Given the many sibling tools, explicit usage instructions would be valuable, but they are absent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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. It only states it 'gets' the order book, providing no detail on return shape, depth, real-time status, or read-only guarantees. While 'Get' implies a read, it doesn't disclose whether it returns best bid/ask or full-depth levels, which is a meaningful gap.
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 a single, concise sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. There is zero redundancy or filler, and the key information is front-loaded.
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 the presence of many sibling market data tools and no output schema, the description is insufficient for an agent to know the return structure (e.g., depth levels, bid/ask arrays) or when this tool is preferable to others. It also lacks any note on pagination or limits. The tool is simple, but the absence of behavioral or return details makes it incomplete.
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 coverage is 100% (the symbol parameter has an explicit description of format), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra semantic information about the parameter beyond saying 'for a symbol,' which is redundant with the schema. It neither enriches nor misleads.
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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and names a distinct resource ('order book') with a clearly defined scope ('for a symbol'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_prices and get_trades by targeting the order book specifically.
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 description implies when to use the tool (when you need order book data) but does not explicitly compare with alternatives or state when not to use it. For example, it doesn't mention using get_prices for last prices or get_trades for recent trades. This leaves room for ambiguity among the many market data siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'recent executed trades' without specifying whether it's read-only, how 'recent' is defined, or any return format details. This leaves significant ambiguity for an agent.
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 a single concise sentence that is front-loaded with the core action and resource. It includes a helpful Korean translation for clarity but does not waste words.
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 is simple and the purpose is clear, but there is no output schema and the description does not explain what constitutes a trade record or how the results are ordered. For an agent to fully understand the return value, more detail would be beneficial, but the core usage is still inferable.
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?
The schema documentation is complete for both parameters (symbol and count) with clear descriptions. The description adds no additional value beyond the schema, matching the baseline for full schema coverage.
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 clear verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('recent executed trades'), and a scope ('for a symbol'). It is easily distinguished from sibling tools like get_orderbook or get_prices, which cover different market data.
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 'for a symbol' provides clear context that the tool requires a symbol to retrieve trades. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this over alternatives, though the name itself implies its purpose.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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. The phrase 'PLACES A REAL change' discloses that the operation actually executes, alerting the agent that it is not a simulation or dry run. However, it does not disclose other relevant behaviors such as high-value confirmation requirements, reversibility, or effects on the existing order, leaving gaps that the schema alone cannot fill.
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 exceptionally concise, consisting of two short sentences. The first sentence states the core action, and the second emphasizes the real-world impact. Every word serves a purpose, and the structure is front-loaded with the essential information, making it efficient for an agent to parse.
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 the tool's moderate complexity, the schema's full parameter coverage, and the absence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It clearly states what the tool does and warns about the real change, but it omits usage context (when to modify vs. cancel/create) and any description of return values or side effects, leaving some gaps for an agent.
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?
The schema provides full (100%) descriptions for all six parameters, including the meaning of price, quantity, order_type, and confirm_high_value_order. The tool description adds no additional semantic information beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline but does not improve comprehension or clarify parameter interactions.
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 the specific verb 'Modify' and the resource 'existing order', making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It also includes '주문 정정' (order correction) which reinforces the intent, and the distinct action differentiates it from sibling tools like create_order and cancel_order.
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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention that this is for modifying existing orders only, nor does it note any conditions or exclusions (e.g., 'use cancel_order to void'). The only context is the verb 'modify', which implies the use case but lacks direct comparison or scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only restates that it gets holdings, without mentioning the default account fallback, optional symbol filtering, or side-effect-free nature. The schema covers the fallback, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond the verb 'Get'.
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 a single sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. It is concise, with no unnecessary words and includes a helpful parenthetical translation.
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 read-only getter with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate. However, it doesn't mention the default account behavior or that the symbol filter is optional, though these are captured in the schema. Overall, the essential context is present.
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 100%, with both parameters documented, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter details beyond what the schema provides, but it doesn't need to.
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 uses a specific verb 'Get' with a clear resource 'holdings / owned stocks' and specifies scope 'for an account'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_trades or get_prices, and the Korean translation reinforces the meaning.
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 description implies when to use it (to see current owned positions), but it does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives like get_trades for historical trades or get_buying_power for available funds. No exclusions or alternative tool mentions are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral details such as return format, timezone, whether holidays are included, or the range of dates covered. It merely restates the tool's purpose, leaving the agent without critical information about what the tool actually returns or how it behaves.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose, earning full points for conciseness and structure.
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 is simple with one optional parameter, and the schema covers that parameter. However, the description does not explain what the returned calendar contains (e.g., holidays, trading sessions) or the format of the response. With no output schema, this missing semantic context makes the description merely minimum viable.
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?
The schema provides full coverage (100%) for the single 'date' parameter with a clear description ('Optional date (YYYY-MM-DD)'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 clearly states the tool retrieves the US market operating calendar, using a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('US market operating calendar'). It distinguishes from the sibling get_market_calendar_kr by explicitly indicating US market, and the Korean phrase reinforces overseas market context.
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 description provides clear context that this is for the US market, making its usage obvious. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as directing users to get_market_calendar_kr for the Korean market. The sibling presence implies the distinction, but it is not stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description is the only source of behavioral information. It clearly indicates a read-only retrieval ('Get'), but does not disclose potential edge cases (e.g., symbols with no price limits) or specifics about the returned data structure. The description is not misleading, but it adds little beyond the basic action.
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 a single, focused sentence that immediately states the action and object. No superfluous words or sections, making it highly concise and easy to parse.
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 single-parameter getter with no output schema, the description is largely sufficient: it specifies what is returned (upper/lower limits) and the input. However, it does not clarify market context (e.g., KR vs US) or whether limits are for the current trading day, which could be ambiguous given the international sibling tools.
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?
The schema already provides 100% coverage with a description of the 'symbol' parameter as 'Stock symbol'. The tool description only repeats 'for a symbol', adding no further semantic detail. Since schema coverage is high, baseline 3 applies; the description doesn't compensate with additional context.
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?
Description clearly states the tool retrieves upper/lower price limits for a symbol, using a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('price limits'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_prices or get_orderbook, which serve different data needs.
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 description implies when to use it (when needing price limits) but provides no explicit guidance on alternatives or exclusions. It doesn't mention that other tools like get_prices are for different data, so the agent must infer the appropriate use case.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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. It discloses that execution is immediate and that it reduces exposure, which are meaningful behavioral traits. However, it does not mention potential side effects (e.g., if the order is already filled) or permission requirements, leaving some gaps in transparency.
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 two short sentences with no redundant information. The Korean translation is a helpful addition, and every word contributes to clarity. It is concise and front-loaded.
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 cancellation tool, the description covers the core purpose and execution behavior. It lacks a note about error cases (e.g., attempting to cancel a non-existent or already-filled order), but given the simplicity and complete schema, it is sufficiently complete.
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?
The input schema already provides 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters, including the fallback for account_id. The description adds no additional parameter-level information, so it meets the schema-coverage baseline without exceeding it.
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 ('Cancel') and resource ('an open order'), and adds the Korean translation for clarity. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like modify_order and create_order by focusing on cancellation. The added phrase 'reduces exposure' gives extra context about the tool's effect.
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 description implies when to use the tool by specifying 'open order', which excludes filled or canceled orders. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select this tool for cancellation tasks.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does exceptionally well: it discloses real-money risk, Tier-1 unconditional rejection, Tier-2 preview unless confirm=true, and the confirm override. This is critical behavioral context beyond what the schema offers, especially for a high-stakes mutation tool.
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 a single dense, front-loaded sentence that immediately warns 'PLACES A REAL ORDER with real money' followed by precise guardrail details. No superfluous words; every clause earns its place.
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?
The tool has 10 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations – a high-complexity context. The description covers the most crucial aspects: risk, precedence of guardrails, and confirmation flow. It does not mention return format or failure modes, but the rich schema compensates for parameter understanding, making it sufficiently complete for invocation.
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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics to the 'confirm' parameter by explaining its role in bypassing the Tier-2 preview, which goes beyond the schema's 'Set true to confirm a high-risk order'. Other parameters are not elaborated, but the schema already covers them adequately.
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 explicitly states 'PLACES A REAL ORDER with real money', clearly identifying the action (placing an order) and the resource (order). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like modify_order/cancel_order by emphasizing real-money execution and backend guardrails. The verb is specific and the scope is unambiguous.
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?
Provides clear context for when to use the tool: to place real orders, and when confirmation is needed (Tier-2 high-risk orders require confirm=true to bypass preview). However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like modify_order or cancel_order, so it misses the full when-not guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![toss-invest-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/kcw2034/toss-invest-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/kcw2034/toss-invest-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![toss-invest-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/kcw2034/toss-invest-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/kcw2034/toss-invest-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/kcw2034/toss-invest-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server