get_option_quoteGet live option quote with bid, ask, mid, IV, greeks, open interest, and volume. Filter by expiry, strike, and type.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| type | No | 'C' or 'P' (call or put) | |
| apiKey | No | FlashAlpha API key. Omit when calling via /mcp-oauth (OAuth flow); required on /mcp. | |
| expiry | No | Expiration date YYYY-MM-DD | |
| strike | No | Strike price | |
| symbol | Yes | Underlying ticker (e.g. SPY, AAPL) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations only provide readOnlyHint, but the description adds useful behavioral context by specifying what data is returned (bid, ask, mid, IV, greeks, open interest, volume) and that the quote is live. This goes beyond the annotation without contradicting it.
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 action and resource, and every word adds value. No fluff or repetition.
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?
With no output schema, the description adequately lists the key return fields and filter options. It could be more explicit that this is for a single contract vs a chain, but the schema and sibling context make it sufficiently clear.
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 each parameter described (symbol, expiry, strike, type, apiKey). The description only mentions that filters exist without adding syntax or format details, so it doesn't meaningfully supplement 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 a specific verb 'Get' and resource 'live option quote' and lists the exact data fields (bid, ask, mid, IV, greeks, open interest, volume), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_option_chain or get_historical_option_quote.
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 usage for retrieving a single option quote with optional filters, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this over alternatives like get_option_chain or get_historical_option_quote. The 'live' qualifier hints at real-time need, but there are no exclusions or alternative-naming.
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.