Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
stock-analyzer-mcp

stock-analyzer-mcp

by kevinlin49361128-stack
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

get_fundamentals_from_db

Read-onlyIdempotent

Access stable and complete Taiwan stock fundamentals—monthly revenue, quarterly EPS, valuation—directly from local database.

Instructions

從本地資料庫取得台股基本面數據（月營收、季度EPS、估值指標），比即時 API 更穩定完整

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": {
      "stockId": "<stockId>"
    },
    "name": "get_fundamentals_from_db"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
stockIdYes台股代號，例如 2330
typeNo資料類型: revenue(月營收)、eps(季度EPS)、valuation(估值)、all(全部)，預設 all

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.2.1

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. The description adds context about local database and stability, which is useful but does not detail behavioral traits like data freshness or failure handling.

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?

Single sentence is efficient and front-loaded with purpose and key benefit, but could use structure for clarity.

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?

Adequate for a simple read-only tool, but lacks details on output format, completeness definition, and any performance guarantees.

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% and describes both parameters well. The tool description reiterates the data types but adds no additional meaning beyond the schema.

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 Taiwan stock fundamentals (monthly revenue, quarterly EPS, valuation metrics) from a local database, explicitly distinguishing itself from real-time APIs and sibling tools that focus on individual data types.

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?

It implies usage when more stable and complete data is needed compared to real-time APIs, but lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tools among siblings like get_monthly_revenue or get_stock_eps.

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