get_historical_exposure_summaryReplay the full exposure summary (net GEX/DEX/VEX/CHEX, regime, hedging estimates, top strikes) at any minute since April 2018. Alpha tier.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| at | Yes | As-of timestamp: YYYY-MM-DDTHH:mm:ss (ET) or YYYY-MM-DD | |
| apiKey | No | FlashAlpha API key. Omit when calling via /mcp-oauth (OAuth flow); required on /mcp. | |
| symbol | Yes | Stock/ETF ticker |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds useful behavioral context around the historical scope and data contents, but does not disclose return format, pagination, or behavior for invalid timestamps. This is moderate added value beyond the annotations.
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 exactly two short sentences with the action verb and key scope front-loaded. Every phrase earns its place, and the 'Alpha tier' note is a compact access qualifier. No redundancy or filler.
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 read-only historical replay tool with full schema and annotations, the description adequately lists the returned components and temporal scope. It does not clarify behavior for timestamps on non-trading days or the exact response wrapper, but given the rich schema and annotations, the description is sufficiently complete.
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 schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds marginal value by clarifying the 'at' parameter granularity ('minute') and the minimum date (April 2018), but it adds no extra semantics for symbol or apiKey beyond the schema.
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 the specific verb 'Replay' with the resource 'full exposure summary', enumerates the exact contents (net GEX/DEX/VEX/CHEX, regime, hedging estimates, top strikes), and bounds the time scope to 'any minute since April 2018'. This clearly differentiates it from the current exposure summary and individual historical GEX/DEX/CHEX/VEX tools among the siblings.
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 wording 'Replay' and 'since April 2018' makes the historical use case obvious, and the 'Alpha tier' qualifier implies an access restriction. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives for current exposure or individual historical metrics, so no active exclusions 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.