Skip to main content
Glama
enesjakozh
shlomico-tr

eToro MCP Server

Official
by shlomico-tr
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Servidor MCP de eToro

Este servidor proporciona herramientas MCP (Protocolo de Contexto de Modelo) para interactuar con los puntos finales de la API pública de eToro. Le permite:

  1. Obtener el portafolio de un usuario usando su nombre de usuario

  2. Busque detalles del instrumento por ID

  3. Búsqueda de instrumentos por prefijo de nombre (autocompletar)

Empezando

  1. Instalar dependencias:

    npm install

  2. Inicie el servidor de desarrollo:

    npm run dev

  3. Construir para producción:

    npm run build

  4. Inicie el servidor de producción:

    npm start

Related MCP server: MCP Yahoo Finance

Herramientas disponibles

buscar_cartera_etoro

Obtiene la cartera de un usuario de eToro usando su nombre de usuario. La herramienta convierte automáticamente el nombre de usuario en un ID de cliente (CID) internamente.

Parámetros:

  • username : El nombre de usuario de eToro

  • authToken (opcional): token de autorización para solicitudes autenticadas

obtener detalles del instrumento

Obtiene detalles de una lista de instrumentos de eToro.

Parámetros:

  • instrumentIds : Lista de identificaciones de instrumentos para los que se obtendrán detalles

  • fields (opcional): campos a incluir en la respuesta (predeterminados: displayname , threeMonthPriceChange , oneYearPriceChange , lastYearPriceChange )

instrumentos de búsqueda

Busca instrumentos de eToro por prefijo de nombre (autocompletar).

Parámetros:

  • namePrefix : El prefijo que se buscará en los nombres de los instrumentos

  • fields (opcional): campos a incluir en la respuesta (predeterminados: internalInstrumentId , displayname , internalClosingPrice )

Limitaciones de CORS

Tenga en cuenta que algunos puntos finales de la API de eToro tienen restricciones CORS y deben llamarse desde un entorno del lado del servidor. Las herramientas de este servidor gestionan estas solicitudes en el servidor para evitar problemas de CORS.

Ejemplo de uso

El servidor expone una API REST para acceder a estas herramientas, que se puede llamar desde cualquier cliente HTTP:

GET /tools                          # List all available tools
GET /tools/:name/schema             # Get tool schema
POST /tools/:name/execute           # Execute a tool

Ejemplo de uso de la herramienta fetch_etoro_portfolio :

curl -X POST http://localhost:3000/tools/fetch_etoro_portfolio/execute \
  -H "Content-Type: application/json" \
  -d '{"username": "yoniasia"}'

Available Tools

3 tools
fetch_etoro_portfolioB

Fetch an eToro user's portfolio using their username

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No parameters

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('fetch') but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or response format. This is a significant gap for a tool that likely involves external data retrieval.

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 that front-loads the core action and resource. There is no wasted language, and it directly communicates the tool's function without unnecessary elaboration.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the complexity of fetching user portfolio data, the description is insufficient. With no annotations, no output schema, and minimal behavioral details, it leaves critical gaps such as authentication needs, data format, and error conditions. The description does not compensate for these missing structured elements.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description adds value by specifying that a username is required, which isn't contradicted by the schema. Baseline is 4 for zero parameters, as the description provides necessary context beyond the empty schema.

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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('fetch') and resource ('eToro user's portfolio'), and identifies the required input ('using their username'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'fetch_instrument_details' or 'search_instruments', which appear to operate on different resources.

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, such as the sibling tools 'fetch_instrument_details' or 'search_instruments'. It mentions the input ('username') but offers no context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

fetch_instrument_detailsB

Fetch details for a list of eToro instruments

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No parameters

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions fetching details but fails to explain how the list is determined, if authentication is needed, rate limits, or response format, leaving significant gaps for a tool with zero parameters.

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 with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'details' include, how instruments are selected, or the return format, making it inadequate for a tool that presumably returns data.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, earning a high baseline score for this context.

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?

The description clearly states the action ('fetch details') and resource ('eToro instruments'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_instruments' or specify what 'details' include, preventing a perfect score.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_instruments' or 'fetch_etoro_portfolio'. The description lacks context about prerequisites or scenarios for usage, offering minimal practical direction.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

search_instrumentsB

Search for eToro instruments by name prefix (autocomplete)

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No parameters

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the search functionality but lacks details on behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication needs, response format, or whether it's read-only or has side effects. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 that front-loads the key information ('Search for eToro instruments') and adds necessary detail ('by name prefix (autocomplete)'). There is no wasted text, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but has gaps. It explains what the tool does but lacks behavioral context and usage guidance relative to siblings. For a search tool, this is minimally viable but could be more complete by addressing when to use it and what to expect in return.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description adds value by explaining the search method ('by name prefix (autocomplete)'), which provides context beyond the empty schema. Baseline is 4 for zero parameters, as the description compensates appropriately.

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?

The description clearly states the action ('Search for') and resource ('eToro instruments'), and specifies the search method ('by name prefix (autocomplete)'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'fetch_instrument_details', which might provide more detailed information about specific instruments rather than searching.

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 like 'fetch_instrument_details' or 'fetch_etoro_portfolio'. It mentions the search method but doesn't specify use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Tool Schema Changelog

Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. 3 tool updatesv1.0.0
    • First observedfetch_etoro_portfolio
    • First observedfetch_instrument_details
    • First observedsearch_instruments
Deploy Server
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Scored across 3 tools

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: fetch_etoro_portfolio retrieves user portfolio data, fetch_instrument_details gets details for specific instruments, and search_instruments performs autocomplete searches. There is no overlap in functionality, making tool selection straightforward for an agent.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with snake_case: fetch_etoro_portfolio, fetch_instrument_details, and search_instruments. The naming is predictable and readable throughout the set.

Tool Count3/5

With only 3 tools, the server feels thin for a financial trading domain like eToro. While the tools cover basic fetching and searching, the scope suggests more operations (e.g., trading actions, account management) would be expected, making the count borderline low.

Completeness2/5

The toolset is significantly incomplete for an eToro server. It lacks core operations such as placing trades, managing orders, viewing account details, or accessing market data beyond instruments. This creates gaps that will likely cause agent failures in real-world trading scenarios.

Maintenance

ActivityInactive
ResponsivenessNo issues

Resources

Related MCP Connectors

Related MCP Servers

  • Tradovate MCP Server

    alexanimal
    A
    license
    Not graded
    quality
    D
    maintenance
    A Model Context Protocol server that enables interaction with the Tradovate API for managing trading contracts, positions, orders, and accounts.
    1
    MIT

  • MCP Yahoo Finance

    leoncuhk
    F
    license
    B
    quality
    D
    maintenance
    Provides tools to get financial data (stock prices, company information) and generate financial visualizations through the Model Context Protocol.
    10
    11
    -

  • Dolibarr MCP Server

    ivanmartin33
    A
    license
    Not graded
    quality
    C
    maintenance
    Provides structured access to Dolibarr ERP/CRM API endpoints via the Model Context Protocol, supporting CRUD operations on resources like thirdparties, products, and orders.
    1
    MIT

  • MCP Tiingo Server

    matteoantoci
    F
    license
    A
    quality
    D
    maintenance
    Provides financial data tools including stock prices, news, forex, fundamentals, and corporate actions via the Tiingo API through the Model Context Protocol.
    11
    5
    -