Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Polygon-io MCP Server

Polygon-io MCP Server

Official
by massive-com
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

get_exchanges

Retrieve a list of exchanges supported by Polygon.io. Filter results by asset class or locale to access specific market data efficiently.

Instructions

List exchanges known by Polygon.io.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "get_exchanges"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
asset_classNo
localeNo
paramsNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

C2.1/5.0
Behavior1/5

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 the action ('List') without any details on permissions, rate limits, pagination, response format, or whether it's read-only or mutative. For a tool with no annotations, this is inadequate.

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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple tool, though this conciseness comes at the cost of detail.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness1/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the complexity (3 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'exchanges' entails, how parameters work, or what the output looks like. For a tool in a financial data context with many siblings, this leaves critical gaps.

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

Parameters1/5

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

The description mentions no parameters. With 3 parameters (asset_class, locale, params) and 0% schema description coverage, the schema provides only titles without explanations. The description fails to add any meaning, such as what these parameters filter or how they affect the listing.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description 'List exchanges known by Polygon.io' clearly states the action (list) and resource (exchanges), providing a basic purpose. However, it lacks specificity about what 'exchanges' means (e.g., stock, crypto, forex) and doesn't distinguish this tool from siblings like 'get_ticker_types' or 'list_tickers', which could also relate to exchange data. It's vague but not tautological.

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. With many sibling tools (e.g., 'get_market_status', 'list_tickers'), there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions. It's a generic list command without usage context.

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

Related Tools