Skip to main content
Glama

FlashAlpha

by com.flashalpha.lab

Live Flow Summary

get_flow_summary
Read-only

At-a-glance simulation-aware flow card: headline flow direction (no_flow/neutral/amplifying/dampening/regime_flip), intraday delta, and live GEX with percent shift from settled. Cheap to poll across a watchlist.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
apiKeyNoFlashAlpha API key. Omit when calling via /mcp-oauth (OAuth flow); required on /mcp.
expiryNoOptional expiry filter YYYY-MM-DD. Omit to aggregate across all expiries.
symbolYesStock/ETF/index ticker (e.g. SPY, QQQ, NVDA)

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint, so safety is disclosed. The description adds context about being simulation-aware, including live GEX with percent shift, and performance characteristics. It does not elaborate on limitations or what 'simulation-aware' entails.

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 a clear label, followed by component list and performance note. Every sentence adds value with no filler.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description lists the key return components. It is reasonably complete for a summary tool, though it could mention typical use cases or limitations.

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 descriptions for all three parameters. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying watchlist context for symbols, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies a flow summary card with specific components (headline flow direction, intraday delta, live GEX with percent shift). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by highlighting 'simulation-aware' and 'cheap to poll' positioning.

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?

It states it's 'cheap to poll across a watchlist', implying usage for watchlist monitoring. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions relative to sibling tools like get_flow_live or get_flow_scan.

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

All FlashAlpha toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

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.

Naming Consistency4/5

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.

Tool Count1/5

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.

Completeness5/5

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.

Resources