StonkBroker Agent

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v0.2.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: system health, NFT status, token listing, quote retrieval, trade execution, and X post retry. There is no functional overlap or ambiguity.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names use consistent snake_case and follow a predictable verb_noun pattern (e.g., list_stock_tokens, execute_stock_trade), with the exception of system_health and broker_status which are noun_noun but still fit the same style. No mixing of conventions.
Tool Count5/5
With 6 tools, the server is well-scoped for its purpose: it covers health check, wallet inspection, token listing, quoting, execution, and X posting retry. This is neither too few nor too many for a trading agent.
Completeness4/5
The tool set covers the core trading workflow end-to-end (check, inspect, list, quote, execute, retry). A minor gap is the lack of a tool to view transaction history or cancel pending trades, but the core functionality is fully covered.
Average 3.8/5 across 6 of 6 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 7 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on July 21, 2026
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is failing
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, providing a strong safety profile. The description adds context about the data being 'canonical' and 'live', which is mildly helpful but does not disclose further behavioral traits like pagination, rate limits, or error handling.
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 concise with two sentences. The first sentence states the primary purpose, and the second provides a usage hint. No extraneous text; efficiently front-loaded.
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?
For a simple list tool with filter, the description is adequate but lacks details on return format, pagination behavior, and the exact semantics of 'canonical'. Without an output schema, the agent may need more information to interpret results correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description partially explains the 'query' parameter (filtering by symbol/contract substring) but provides no information about the 'limit' parameter. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to compensate adequately for both parameters.
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 action ('list'), the resource ('canonical stock tokens'), and the source ('Robinhood's live asset registry'). It also specifies the filtering mechanism using symbol or contract substring, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like quote_stock_trade or execute_stock_trade.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when needing to look up stock tokens by symbol/contract substring, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools provide context, but the description lacks direct guidelines on when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond annotations (destructiveHint=true), description reveals it auto-posts balance deltas and transaction link to X. However, does not disclose handling of failures or X posting errors.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence front-loads the action and key steps. Efficient, but could benefit from structured list for clarity. No filler.
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?
Covers side effect (X post) and destructive nature, but lacks return value description, failure scenarios, or integration with sibling tools for status checks. Adequate but not thorough.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%. Description does not explain 'quoteId' or 'confirmation' parameters. 'confirmation' with const 'EXECUTE' is not mentioned, leaving agents to infer meaning.
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?
Clearly states the tool executes a previously quoted trade from the StonkBroker ERC-6551 wallet, waits for confirmation, and posts results to X. Differentiates from sibling 'quote_stock_trade' which provides the quote.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Implies a prior quote is needed but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives for retrying or checking status. No exclusionary guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Adds value beyond annotations by explaining durability of queuing, which implies idempotency. Aligns with idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false.
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?
Two concise sentences with no wasted words. Information is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Adequate for a simple retry tool with no output schema. Minor gap: does not specify behavior when no queued posts exist.
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?
No parameters; description does not need to add param info. Baseline score for 0 parameters.
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?
Clearly states it retries queued X posts for confirmed trades. The verb 'retry' and resource 'queued X posts' are specific. However, it could explicitly mention it's for failed posts.
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 like execute_stock_trade. No conditions or exclusions provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds the critical behavioral note 'Never returns secrets' beyond what annotations provide (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint). This is valuable for an agent evaluating safety. However, it does not describe other behaviors like response format or error handling, so it is not a full 5.
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?
Two sentences with no superfluous words. The first sentence immediately states the purpose, and the second sentence adds a critical behavioral constraint. Every word earns its place.
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?
While the tool has no input parameters and annotations cover safety, there is no output schema and the description does not describe what the response looks like (e.g., boolean, detailed status). For a health-check tool, agents would benefit from knowing the return format to interpret results correctly.
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?
There are no parameters (schema coverage 100% by default), so baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter details since none exist.
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 it checks Robinhood Chain connectivity and credential configuration for quote, signing, live trading, and X posting. This is a specific verb+resource combination, and it distinguishes itself from siblings like broker_status or execute_stock_trade by focusing on system health rather than trading or status of a specific broker.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like broker_status or retry_x_posts. The description only states what it checks, not when it is appropriate to invoke. An agent would have to infer use cases without explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description adds value by detailing the specific inspection actions (verifying ERC-6551 binding, listing balances). It does not contradict annotations.
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, concise sentence that front-loads the main verb 'Inspect' and covers all key actions without wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the tool's three main actions (inspect, verify, list) and references specific constraints (ERC-6551, token-bound wallet). It lacks details about output format or what 'canonical' means, but given the low complexity and single parameter, it is largely complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with a description for tokenId ('StonkBroker token ID'). The description does not add further meaning beyond what the schema already provides, meeting baseline expectations.
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's verb ('Inspect'), the resource ('StonkBroker NFT'), and the specific actions (verify ERC-6551 binding, list balances). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools that deal with system health, stock tokens, quotes, trades, or retries.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for inspecting a specific NFT token, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide when-not or prerequisite conditions. Context from sibling tools helps but is not part of the description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true; description adds that it is time-limited and uses Uniswap, and explicitly states it never signs or submits. No contradiction. Adds useful context beyond annotations.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and key behavioral trait. No redundant information. Every word earns its place.
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 no output schema, the description does not explain the return structure (e.g., quote details, expiry). It mentions 'time-limited' but remains vague. For a 5-parameter tool with varying schema coverage, missing return info and parameter overview reduces completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 60%, with some parameters having no description (tokenId). The tool description does not elaborate on parameters, leaving the schema to do the work. Could be improved by explaining tokenId or slippage.
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 verb 'request a quote', the resource 'Uniswap quote for stock tokens held by a StonkBroker TBA', and specifies it is for exact-input trades. This distinguishes it from the sibling 'execute_stock_trade' which signs/submits.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly notes this should be used for getting a quote before execution, and that it never signs or submits. Implies when-not-to-use (for actual execution) and contrasts with execute_stock_trade. Could be more explicit about prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![stonkbroker-agent MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/slkzgm/stonkbroker-agent/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/slkzgm/stonkbroker-agent)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![stonkbroker-agent MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/slkzgm/stonkbroker-agent/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/slkzgm/stonkbroker-agent)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/slkzgm/stonkbroker-agent'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server