get_stock_quoteGet real-time stock quote (bid, ask, mid, last price) for a ticker symbol.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| apiKey | No | FlashAlpha API key. Omit when calling via /mcp-oauth (OAuth flow); required on /mcp. | |
| symbol | Yes | Stock ticker (e.g. SPY, AAPL, TSLA) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / properties / apiKey / defaultAdded value: +nullInput schema / properties / apiKey / descriptionPrevious value: -"Your FlashAlpha API key"New value: +"FlashAlpha API key. Omit when calling via /mcp-oauth (OAuth flow); required on /mcp."Input schema / properties / apiKey / typePrevious value: -"string"New value: +[
+ "string",
+ "null"
+]Input schema / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "symbol",
- "apiKey"
-]New value: +[
+ "symbol"
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations include readOnlyHint=true, already indicating a safe read operation. The description adds value by disclosing the specific data returned (bid, ask, mid, last price), which is useful for setting expectations. It does not mention any caveats like data delays or error handling, but for a simple read-only quote tool this is adequate.
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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and key output fields, earning a perfect score for conciseness.
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 simple tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description sufficiently explains the return values (bid, ask, mid, last price). It does not cover potential error responses or data source details, but it is complete enough for straightforward stock quote retrieval. The presence of many sibling tools suggests some differentiation could be added, but it's not essential.
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 baseline is 3. The description adds minimal parameter meaning beyond the schema; it mentions 'ticker symbol' but not the apiKey parameter. The schema already fully describes both parameters, so the description provides no additional semantic value.
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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'real-time stock quote' with specific fields (bid, ask, mid, last price). It distinguishes from siblings like get_historical_stock_quote and get_option_quote by specifying 'real-time' and 'stock', making the tool's purpose unambiguous.
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 current stock quotes but does not explicitly mention when to use it over alternatives. It lacks exclusions or alternative tool references, relying on the word 'real-time' to differentiate from historical or option quote tools. Clear context is present, but no explicit guidance on when not to use it.
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.