get_flow_pin_riskLive pin-risk score with full sub-score breakdown, computed on effective (simulation-aware) OI. Reflects intraday flow changes to dealer positioning.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| apiKey | No | FlashAlpha API key. Omit when calling via /mcp-oauth (OAuth flow); required on /mcp. | |
| expiry | No | Optional expiry filter YYYY-MM-DD. Omit to aggregate across all expiries. | |
| symbol | Yes | Stock/ETF/index ticker (e.g. SPY, QQQ, NVDA) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes a safe read operation. The description adds methodology ('computed on effective (simulation-aware) OI'), what the score reflects ('intraday flow changes to dealer positioning'), and the return shape ('full sub-score breakdown'). This provides useful behavioral context beyond the annotation without contradiction.
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 two concise sentences, front-loading the key output and its defining characteristics. Every word adds value, with no filler or redundant information.
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?
The description adequately conveys the essential output (risk score with sub-scores), the computation basis, and the dynamic intraday nature, which is enough for an agent to select the tool correctly. While no output schema exists, the description provides sufficient context about what the result represents, though a bit more detail on return format would be slightly better.
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?
The input schema fully describes all three parameters (apiKey, expiry, symbol) with clear explanations. The tool description does not add any additional parameter-level semantics, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate given 100% schema coverage.
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 clearly identifies the tool as returning a 'Live pin-risk score' with a 'full sub-score breakdown', computed on 'effective (simulation-aware) OI' and reflecting 'intraday flow changes to dealer positioning'. This specific verb+resource combination and unique focus on pin risk distinguishes it from sibling flow/dealer risk tools.
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?
The words 'Live' and 'intraday flow changes' imply a real-time monitoring use case, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_flow_dealer_risk or get_dex. No exclusions or alternative references are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Many tools have overlapping scopes: get_stock_summary, get_volatility, get_vrp, and get_exposure_summary all return comprehensive analytics with shared metrics, making it hard to pick the right one. The flow family (get_flow_live, get_flow_summary, get_flow_scan, get_flow_signals, etc.) has significant redundancy — get_flow_live bundles data also available via separate tools.
Tool names mostly follow a consistent get_<noun> pattern, with clear subgroups like get_historical_* and get_*_exposure. Minor deviations exist: post_screener, post_structure_pnl, calculate_greeks, and solve_iv break the get_ convention, but they are still predictable and readable.
With 73 tools, this is far beyond the 3–15 tool sweet spot and even the 50+ extreme mismatch threshold. While the domain is broad, the enormous surface is bloated by near-duplicate historical replay variants (18 get_historical_* tools) and multiple overlapping summary endpoints, making it unwieldy for an agent.
The tool set provides thorough coverage of options analytics: quotes, chains, greeks, volatility surface, VRP, exposure, flow, historical replay, screening, and strategy analysis. There are no obvious dead ends — core workflows like calculating greeks, getting exposure, and screening the universe are all supported.