dca_checkCheck if investment symbols support Dollar-Cost Averaging recurring plans. Provide a list of security symbols to verify eligibility for automated DCA investments.
Check whether given symbols support DCA recurring investment.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| symbols | Yes | Security symbols to check, e.g. ["AAPL.US", "TSLA.US"] |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| items | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
v0.7.1Input schema / titleRemoved value: -"DcaCheckParam"v0.6.0Output schema / $defs / DcaCheckItem / descriptionRemoved value: -"DCA-eligibility result for one symbol."Output schema / $defs / DcaCheckItem / properties / reason / descriptionRemoved value: -"Reason when unsupported."Output schema / $defs / DcaCheckItem / properties / support_dca / descriptionRemoved value: -"Whether the symbol supports DCA recurring investment."Output schema / $defs / DcaCheckItem / properties / symbol / descriptionRemoved value: -"Security symbol."Output schema / $schemaRemoved value: -"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"Output schema / descriptionRemoved value: -"Returned by `dca_check`. DCA-eligibility result per queried symbol,\nforwarded after the standard transform (upstream `counter_ids` query →\nper-symbol items). Subset of the wire payload — only documented fields are\ndeclared; all optional."Output schema / properties / items / descriptionRemoved value: -"Per-symbol support results."Output schema / titleRemoved value: -"DcaCheckResponse"v0.5.6Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "$defs": {
+ "DcaCheckItem": {
+ "description": "DCA-eligibility result for one symbol.",
+ "properties": {
+ "reason": {
+ "description": "Reason when unsupported.",
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "support_dca": {
+ "description": "Whether the symbol supports DCA recurring investment.",
+ "type": [
+ "boolean",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "symbol": {
+ "description": "Security symbol.",
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+ }
+ },
+ "$schema": "https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema",
+ "description": "Returned by `dca_check`. DCA-eligibility result per queried symbol,\nforwarded after the standard transform (upstream `counter_ids` query →\nper-symbol items). Subset of the wire payload — only documented fields are\ndeclared; all optional.",
+ "properties": {
+ "items": {
+ "description": "Per-symbol support results.",
+ "items": {
+ "$ref": "#/$defs/DcaCheckItem"
+ },
+ "type": [
+ "array",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ }
+ },
+ "title": "DcaCheckResponse",
+ "type": "object"
+}v0.4.5v0.4.0v0.3.2v0.3.1v0.1.12Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations provide, so it neither enhances nor contradicts them.
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?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the main action and resource.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity and the presence of annotations and output schema, the description is mostly adequate. It could mention the output format or edge cases, but it is sufficient for a straightforward check tool.
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 coverage is 100% with a clear description for the single parameter. The tool description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score 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 clearly states the tool checks symbol support for DCA recurring investment. It uses a specific verb 'check' and resource 'symbols', and distinguishes it from sibling DCA tools like dca_create, dca_list, etc.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus other DCA-related tools (e.g., dca_list, dca_stats). It does not mention prerequisites, alternatives, or context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/longbridge/longbridge-mcp'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server