get_historical_volatilityReplay volatility analytics (ATM IV, realised vol, IV-RV spreads, skew, term structure) 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 description does not need to repeat safety. It adds useful context about the temporal availability (since April 2018) and the included metrics, but does not disclose any other behavioral traits such as rate limits or data update latency.
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 sentences, front-loaded with the key purpose and metrics, and contains no filler. Every word contributes useful 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 provides the core purpose and time scope, which is adequate for a read-only query tool, but it lacks information about the return format or how this differs from the advanced historical volatility tool. With no output schema, some detail about the shape of results would improve completeness.
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 coverage is 100% with descriptive parameter text, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add significant new meaning to the parameters beyond the schema, though it reinforces 'at' with the phrase 'at any minute since April 2018'.
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 states the tool replays volatility analytics and lists specific metrics (ATM IV, realised vol, IV-RV spreads, skew, term structure), making it distinct from generic tools. It identifies the resource (volatility analytics) and the temporal scope, but does not explicitly differentiate from the closely named sibling 'get_historical_advanced_volatility'.
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 description implies when to use the tool (when historical volatility analytics are needed) by specifying the date range and metrics, but it does not provide explicit guidance on alternatives or when not to use it, especially given the existence of get_historical_advanced_volatility.
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.