Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
IBKR MCP

IBKR MCP

by rodrigta
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

ibkr_get_historical_bars

Fetch historical OHLCV bars for a stock symbol with customizable duration, bar size, and other parameters.

Instructions

Get historical OHLCV bars for a stock.

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": "ibkr_get_historical_bars"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
symbolYes
durationNo1 D
bar_sizeNo5 mins
what_to_showNoTRADES
use_rthNo
exchangeNoSMART
currencyNoUSD

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.6/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Only states it retrieves historical OHLCV bars but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as data limits, time zone handling, response format, or rate limits.

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, no fluff. But the tool requires more context for effective usage. Conciseness alone does not compensate for missing essential information.

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 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. Lacks return value details, parameter constraints, and usage scenarios. Agent cannot effectively invoke the tool without external knowledge.

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% with 7 parameters. Description adds no meaning beyond parameter names. Does not explain default values (e.g., duration '1 D', bar_size '5 mins'), valid formats, or how parameters affect the result.

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 gets historical OHLCV bars for a stock. It uses a specific verb-resource pair (get historical bars) and differentiates from siblings like ibkr_get_quote (current price) and ibkr_get_option_chain.

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 vs alternatives. Does not mention scenarios (e.g., backtesting, analysis) or exclusions (e.g., use ibkr_get_quote for real-time data, ibkr_get_option_chain for options).

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