Skip to main content
Glama

FlashAlpha

by com.flashalpha.lab

Option Trade Flow

get_option_flow
Read-only

Raw intraday option trade-flow for one underlying. Views: 'recent' (recent option trades, newest first), 'summary' (option trade-flow totals by underlying), 'blocks' (large option trades by underlying), 'history' (minute option-flow buckets, newest first), 'cumulative' (cumulative net option net premium by underlying).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
viewYesView: 'recent' | 'summary' | 'blocks' | 'history' | 'cumulative'
limitNoMax trades returned (recent/blocks: 1–500, default 50). Only applies to 'recent'.
apiKeyNoFlashAlpha API key. Omit when calling via /mcp-oauth (OAuth flow); required on /mcp.
expiryNoOptional expiry filter YYYY-MM-DD.
symbolYesUnderlying ticker (e.g. SPY, AAPL, QQQ)
minutesNoWindow size in minutes for 'history' or 'cumulative' (1–10080, default 60/240).

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations provide only readOnlyHint, so the description carries more weight. It adds meaningful context: 'newest first' ordering, 'raw intraday' granularity, and explanations of each view. However, it omits potential caveats like rate limits or data delays, which are not covered by annotations either.

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?

The description is a single, well-structured sentence with a semicolon-separated list of views. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and each view earns its place without unnecessary 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?

Despite no output schema, the per-view descriptions convey the output shape (totals, large trades, minute buckets, cumulative premium). For a tool with six parameters and five views, this provides sufficient invocation context, though it omits return field specifics.

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?

Input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-level detail beyond the schema but also does not conflict with it.

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 states it retrieves 'Raw intraday option trade-flow for one underlying' and enumerates five distinct views. The verb 'get' plus the specific resource and per-underlying scope distinguish it from broader flow-scanning tools like get_flow_scan.

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?

Each view is defined with its purpose ('recent' trades, 'summary' totals, 'blocks' large trades, etc.), giving clear context for when to use the tool. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the 'for one underlying' scope implies when this tool is appropriate.

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