get_vrpGet volatility risk premium (VRP) dashboard: live IV vs realized vol, VRP percentiles, term structure, regime classification, strategy scores, and macro context.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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, so the agent knows it's safe. The description adds context about the dashboard's contents (percentiles, term structure, regime, strategy scores, macro) but doesn't disclose additional behavioral aspects like data freshness, pagination, or rate limits. With annotation coverage, this is acceptable but not exceptional.
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 sentence, front-loaded with the tool's purpose, and uses a concise list of key components. Every phrase earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.
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?
Despite lacking an output schema, the description enumerates the major sections of the dashboard (IV vs RV, percentiles, term structure, regime, strategy scores, macro context), giving a solid mental model of what the response will contain. It could mention units or interpretation, but it's sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke and understand the result.
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?
The input schema covers both parameters (apiKey, symbol) with 100% description coverage. The tool description does not add parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 ('VRP dashboard'), and clearly distinguishes it from historical counterparts like get_vrp_history by emphasizing 'live IV vs realized vol'. It lists the dashboard's components, leaving no ambiguity about the tool's function.
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 explicitly says 'live IV vs realized vol', which implies the tool is for current, not historical, VRP data. It doesn't name alternatives but the context of 'dashboard' and 'live' signals when to use it versus get_vrp_history or get_historical_vrp. This provides clear context without explicit exclusions.
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.