Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
trading-mcp-server

trading-mcp-server

by mukul8896
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

calculate_stop_loss

Suggest an ATR-based stop loss from current price to manage trading risk by limiting potential losses.

Instructions

ATR-based stop-loss suggestion from current price.

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": {
      "symbol": "<symbol>"
    },
    "name": "calculate_stop_loss"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
symbolYes
sideNoBUY
atr_multiplierNo
timeframeNoONE_DAY

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.4/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations exist, so description bears full burden. It only states 'suggestion', implying non-guaranteed output, but does not disclose limitations (e.g., ATR unavailability, edge cases) or any side effects.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Single sentence is concise and front-loaded, but too brief for a 4-parameter tool with no schema descriptions. Could include parameter context without losing conciseness.

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?

Without output schema or annotations, description fails to explain return format, timeframes, or multiplier behavior. Incomplete for proper tool selection and invocation.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, and description adds no parameter explanations. Parameters like symbol, side, atr_multiplier, and timeframe are completely undocumented in the description, leaving agent uninformed about valid values or effects.

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?

Description clearly states 'ATR-based stop-loss suggestion from current price', specifying verb (calculate/suggest), resource (stop-loss), and method (ATR-based). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like calculate_atr or calculate_target_price.

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 (e.g., calculate_atr for ATR values, calculate_target_price for targets). No when-not or contextual advice provided.

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