StockFlow MCP Server
StockFlow MCP Server
Ein Model Context Protocol (MCP)-Server, der Echtzeit-Aktiendaten und Optionsanalysen über Yahoo Finance bereitstellt. Ermöglicht LLMs den Zugriff auf Marktdaten, die Analyse von Aktien und die Bewertung von Optionsstrategien.
Funktionen
Aktiendaten
Echtzeit-Aktienkurse und wichtige Kennzahlen
Historische Kursdaten mit OHLC-Werten
Unternehmenskennzahlen und Finanzberichte
Marktindikatoren und Kennzahlen
Optionsanalyse
Vollständige Optionskettendaten
Griechen (Delta, Gamma, Theta, Vega)
Verfolgung von Volumen und offenem Interesse
Analyse von Optionsstrategien
Related MCP server: MCP Yahoo Finance
Installation
# Install dependencies
pip install mcp yfinance
# Clone the repository
git clone https://github.com/twolven/stockflow
cd stockflowVerwendung
Klonen Sie das Repository:
git clone https://github.com/twolven/mcp-stockflow.git
cd mcp-stockflowInstallieren Sie die Abhängigkeiten:
pip install -r requirements.txtFügen Sie zu Ihrer Claude-Konfiguration hinzu: Fügen Sie in Ihrer
claude-desktop-config.jsonFolgendes zum AbschnittmcpServershinzu:
{
"mcpServers": {
"stockflow": {
"command": "python",
"args": ["path/to/stockflow.py"]
}
}
}Ersetzen Sie "path/to/stockflow.py" durch den vollständigen Pfad zu der Stelle, an der Sie die Datei stockflow.py gespeichert haben.
Verwendungshinweis für Claude
Wenn Sie mit Claude arbeiten, können Sie diesen Hinweis verwenden, um ihm die verfügbaren Tools zu erklären:
"Ich habe die stockflow-Tools aktiviert, die Ihnen Zugriff auf Aktienmarktdaten geben. Sie können diese drei Hauptfunktionen verwenden:
get_stock_data– Umfassende Aktieninformationen abrufen:
{
"symbol": "AAPL",
"include_financials": true, # optional
"include_analysis": true, # optional
"include_calendar": true # optional
}get_historical_data– Kursverlauf und technische Indikatoren abrufen:
{
"symbol": "AAPL",
"period": "1y", # 1d, 5d, 1mo, 3mo, 6mo, 1y, 2y, 5y, 10y, ytd, max
"interval": "1d", # 1m, 2m, 5m, 15m, 30m, 60m, 90m, 1h, 1d, 5d, 1wk, 1mo, 3mo
"prepost": false # optional - include pre/post market data
}get_options_chain– Optionsdaten abrufen:
{
"symbol": "AAPL",
"expiration_date": "2024-12-20", # optional - uses nearest date if not specified
"include_greeks": true # optional
}Alle Antworten enthalten aktuelle Kursdaten, Fehlerbehandlung und umfassende Marktinformationen."
Server ausführen
python stockflow.pyVerwendung mit MCP-Client
from mcp import ClientSession, StdioServerParameters
from mcp.client.stdio import stdio_client
server_params = StdioServerParameters(
command="python",
args=["stockflow.py"]
)
async def run():
async with stdio_client(server_params) as (read, write):
async with ClientSession(read, write) as session:
await session.initialize()
# Get current stock data
result = await session.call_tool(
"get-stock-data",
arguments={"symbol": "AAPL"}
)
# Get options chain
options = await session.call_tool(
"get-options-chain",
arguments={
"symbol": "AAPL",
"expiration_date": "2024-12-20"
}
)
if __name__ == "__main__":
import asyncio
asyncio.run(run())Verfügbare Tools
get-stock-dataAktueller Preis und Volumen
Marktkapitalisierung und KGV
52-Wochen-Hoch/Tief
get-historical-dataOHLC-Kurse
Konfigurierbare Zeiträume
Volumendaten
get-options-chainCalls und Puts
Ausübungspreise
Griechen und IV
Volumen und offenes Interesse
Verfügbare Ressourcen
company-info://{symbol}Unternehmensbeschreibung
Sektor und Branche
Mitarbeiterzahl
Website
financials://{symbol}Gewinn- und Verlustrechnung
Bilanz
Kapitalflussrechnung
Prompts
analyze-optionsAnalyse von Optionsstrategien
Risiko-/Ertragsbewertung
Bewertung der Marktbedingungen
Anforderungen
Python 3.12+
mcp
yfinance
Einschränkungen
Die Daten stammen von Yahoo Finance und können Verzögerungen aufweisen.
Die Verfügbarkeit von Optionsdaten hängt von den Marktzeiten ab.
Es gelten Ratenbegrenzungen basierend auf den Einschränkungen der Yahoo-Finance-API.
Mitwirken
Beiträge sind willkommen! Sie können gerne einen Pull Request einreichen.
Lizenz
Dieses Projekt ist unter der MIT-Lizenz lizenziert – siehe die Datei LICENSE für Details.
Autor
Todd Wolven – Leitender KI-Softwareentwickler und Open-Source-GenAI-Ingenieur
Danksagungen
Erstellt mit dem Model Context Protocol (MCP) von Anthropic
Daten bereitgestellt von Yahoo Finance
Entwickelt für die Verwendung mit Claude von Anthropic
Available Tools
3 toolsget_historical_data_v2C
Get unadjusted/repaired price history and technical indicators.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| period | Yes | Yahoo Finance history period | |
| symbol | Yes | Yahoo Finance ticker symbol | |
| prepost | No | ||
| interval | No | History sampling interval | 1d |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | |
| success | Yes | |
| provider | Yes | |
| warnings | Yes | |
| timestamp | Yes |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does not explain what 'unadjusted/repaired' means, whether data is adjusted for splits/dividends, whether any access restrictions or rate limits apply, or what side effects exist. The operation appears read-only based on 'Get,' but this is not explicitly confirmed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no filler or repetition. It directly states the core function. The slight ambiguity of 'unadjusted/repaired' costs some clarity but does not add unnecessary length.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Although an output schema exists, the description is too thin for a tool with four parameters and two sibling tools. It omits usage context, clarifies neither 'unadjusted/repaired' nor 'prepost,' and gives no indication about which technical indicators are included. An agent would have to infer too much from the schema alone.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 75%, with symbol, period, and interval documented directly in the schema. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning and does not clarify the undocumented 'prepost' parameter. However, the schema's enums and descriptions carry most of the semantic weight, so the description's lack of contribution is only a moderate gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Get' and names a clear resource: 'unadjusted/repaired price history and technical indicators.' This distinguishes it from get_options_chain_v2, which is clearly for options data. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from get_stock_data_v2, which could plausibly also return price-related data.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to choose this tool over get_stock_data_v2 or get_options_chain_v2. The phrase 'price history' implies past data, but no explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_options_chain_v2B
Get an option chain and optionally add theoretical European Black-Scholes Greeks.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| symbol | Yes | Yahoo Finance ticker symbol | |
| include_greeks | No | ||
| expiration_date | No |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | |
| success | Yes | |
| provider | Yes | |
| warnings | Yes | |
| timestamp | Yes |
TDQS
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 adds the useful detail that Greeks are theoretical European Black-Scholes, but it does not explain defaults for expiration_date, whether the chain covers all expirations when null, what 'option chain' includes (calls/puts/strikes), or any limitations or side effects. This falls short of transparent behavioral disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, front-loaded sentence that states the primary action and the optional enhancement with zero filler. Every word earns its place; it is concise without losing meaning.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a 3-parameter tool with no annotations and only 33% schema coverage, the description is too thin. It does not clarify the meaning of expiration_date, the default behavior when it is null, the scope of the returned chain, or any caller expectations. The output schema exists, but key input semantics and usage context are missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 33% — only the symbol parameter is described. The description helps clarify include_greeks by tying it to theoretical European Black-Scholes Greeks, but expiration_date receives no semantic explanation beyond the schema's type/format. With low schema coverage, the description should compensate more fully.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb and resource — "Get an option chain" — and clearly distinguishes this tool from its siblings, which cover stock and historical data. The optional Greeks clause adds further precision without ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage context is implied by the domain: use this tool when you need option chain data, versus stock data or historical data for the siblings. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of when to set include_greeks versus leave it false, and no stated exclusions or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_stock_data_v2B
Get stock metadata and optional statements, analysis and calendar data.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| symbol | Yes | Yahoo Finance ticker symbol | |
| include_analysis | No | ||
| include_calendar | No | ||
| include_financials | No |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | |
| success | Yes | |
| provider | Yes | |
| warnings | Yes | |
| timestamp | Yes |
TDQS
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 disclosing behavior. It conveys a read operation and hints at optional inclusions, but it does not mention output structure, side effects, rate limits, or behavior when flags are false. The output schema helps with return shape but not with behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single front-loaded sentence that leads with the core purpose and then lists optional variations. There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema, return-value details are covered elsewhere. However, the description lacks usage guidance and sufficient elaboration on the optional data categories, making it minimally adequate but not fully self-sufficient for an agent deciding between this and sibling tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is low at 25%, with only 'symbol' documented. The description adds some meaning by mapping the boolean flags to 'statements, analysis and calendar data,' which helps associate include_financials, include_analysis, and include_calendar, but it stops short of explaining what each included dataset contains.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a clear verb and resource: 'Get stock metadata' plus optional statements, analysis, and calendar data. It is specific enough to distinguish the tool from historical-data and options-chain siblings by resource type, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
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 get_historical_data_v2 or get_options_chain_v2. The phrase 'stock metadata' implies a use case, but the description does not state selection criteria or mention sibling tools.
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.
3 tool updates
v2.1.0- First observed
get_historical_data_v2 - First observed
get_options_chain_v2 - First observed
get_stock_data_v2
TDQS
Scored across 3 tools
Each tool targets a clearly distinct data domain: metadata/statements, historical prices/indicators, and options chains. There is no functional overlap between the three tools, so an agent can reliably select the correct one.
All tool names follow the exact same get_<resource>_v2 pattern, with consistent snake_case and a uniform version suffix. This makes the naming scheme highly predictable and easy to navigate.
Three tools is a modest but reasonable scope for a focused stock data server. The count is on the lower end, but each tool covers a substantial area, so it does not feel overly thin.
The main investment data workflows—current company data, historical prices, and options—are all covered. Minor gaps such as ticker search or news endpoints exist, but they are not critical dead ends for typical stock analysis use cases.
Maintenance
Related MCP Connectors
Financial data MCP server for Claude, ChatGPT, Cursor and Codex. Real-time stock quotes, financial statements, options flow, SEC filings, insider trades, 13F holdings, macro data and market news from gloom.sh, the open-source Bloomberg Terminal alternative.
A Model Context Protocol server exposing real-time and historical Colombo Stock Exchange (CSE) data to AI agents and LLM applications. Provides quotes and OHLCV price history, full financial statements (income, balance sheet, cash flow), pre-computed technicals (moving averages, RS ratings, volume signals), macroeconomic indicators, corporate actions, and rule-based screening across CSE stocks and sector indices, everything needed to build CSE-aware trading assistants, research tools, and market-analysis agents. This is the official MCP server of www.ceyloncharts.com
Production MCP server for US equity and options intelligence: real-time IV radar, Monte Carlo simulation, options pressure, strategy backtesting, AI prediction, pre-trade risk analysis, and automated stock research reports.
A comprehensive Model Context Protocol (MCP) server that enables AI assistants to interact with yo…
Related MCP Servers
- AlicenseBqualityBmaintenanceA Model Context Protocol server that enables LLMs to analyze options chains, calculate Greeks, and evaluate basic options strategies through Yahoo Finance data.140MIT
- AlicenseBqualityAmaintenanceA Model Context Protocol server that enables interaction with Yahoo Finance to retrieve stock pricing, company information, and historical financial data through natural language queries.21576 PyPI28MIT
- AlicenseCqualityNot gradedmaintenanceA Model Context Protocol server that provides tools for interacting with Yahoo Finance, allowing users to retrieve stock prices, company information, and perform financial data comparisons.11MIT
- AlicenseCqualityDmaintenanceA Model Context Protocol server providing comprehensive financial data from Yahoo Finance, allowing users to retrieve detailed stock information, financial statements, options data, and market news.34MIT
Appeared in Searches
- Real-Time Stock Options Data for All NASDAQ Stocks
- Yahoo Finance MCP (Model Context Protocol) Server
- A server for exploring business analysis, market research, and idea validation techniques
- A guide to investing in managed funds and equities
- A platform for live probability option trading with indicators across multiple markets