get_vrp_historyGet historical VRP time series: daily ATM IV, realized vol (5/10/20/30d), VRP, straddle price, and expected move for charting and backtesting.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| days | No | Number of days of history (default 30, max 365) | |
| 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?
The annotation declares readOnlyHint=true, and the description is consistent with a read-only operation. The description adds valuable context by listing the exact data series returned (daily ATM IV, realized vol horizons, VRP, straddle price, expected move), which goes beyond what annotations provide. It does not mention pagination or rate limits, but for a simple historical data retrieval, this is acceptable.
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, information-dense sentence with no fluff. It front-loads the key idea ('Get historical VRP time series') and then enumerates the included metrics and usage. Every word earns its place.
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 takes on the burden of explaining return values. It lists the fields returned (ATM IV, realized vol, VRP, straddle price, expected move) and the purpose. It could be more explicit about the data format (e.g., array of daily objects), but it gives enough for an agent to understand the tool's capabilities.
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%, meaning all parameters (symbol, days, apiKey) already have descriptions in the input schema. The tool description does not add any additional parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides. This is the baseline score for full schema coverage.
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 specifies the tool's purpose: 'Get historical VRP time series' with detailed components (daily ATM IV, realized vol, VRP, straddle price, expected move). It is specific about the resource and action. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'get_historical_vrp', which appears to have a very similar name and likely purpose, so no explicit sibling distinction is made.
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 states the intended use case: 'for charting and backtesting.' This gives clear context for when to use the tool. It does not mention when not to use it or provide alternative tools, so it stops short of a full usage guideline.
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.