get_historical_narrativeReplay the verbal narrative analysis (regime, key-level commentary, prior-day comparison) 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 declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description's 'Replay' is consistent with a read-only operation. The description adds context beyond annotations by disclosing the data availability window ('since April 2018'), the content categories, and the access-tier requirement ('Alpha tier'), which helps the agent understand what to expect.
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, tightly worded sentence that front-loads the core action and resource, then adds essential scoping details. Every clause earns its place; 'Alpha tier' is brief but useful for availability expectations.
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 historical lookup tool with full schema coverage and a read-only annotation, the description is nearly complete. It explains what the tool returns (verbal narrative analysis with specific components) and its time range. It does not outline edge cases or output formatting, but those are not critical for this low-complexity tool.
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 100%, so the parameters (symbol, at, apiKey) are already well-documented in the input schema. The description minimally reinforces the 'at' parameter via 'at any minute' and the 'symbol' concept via 'verbal narrative analysis', but it does not add new semantic detail 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 clearly identifies the action ('Replay'), the resource ('verbal narrative analysis'), and the temporal scope ('at any minute since April 2018'), while also enumerating content (regime, key-level commentary, prior-day comparison). This distinguishes it from current-looking siblings like get_narrative by emphasizing its historical nature.
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 is implied rather than explicit: the phrase 'at any minute since April 2018' suggests this tool is for past time points, and the sibling get_narrative likely covers current narratives. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites beyond 'Alpha tier'.
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.