SquawkFlow Market Structure

Morning structure for SPX, SPY and QQQ

morning_structure

Read-onlyIdempotent

Use this when the question is the structural framework for the session: where SPX, SPY or QQQ sit against the Flip Line and the Swing Line, where the call wall, put wall and Pin Zone are, which strikes carry the largest positive and negative gamma, what the regime sign is, and which dated events are on the calendar today. One call replaces reading a gamma chart and a calendar separately. Returns labelled figures per symbol, each with its own as-of time, plus the day's catalysts and three session windows stated as conditions against the Flip Line and Swing Line. Coverage: SPX, SPY and QQQ only. The current session sheet only. Not for: per-strike magnitudes or gamma by expiration (get_gamma_heatmap); a dated record of what was published before a past session (get_session_record); the sector ETFs (get_gamma_matrix); futures prices, which this sheet does not carry. Limits: dealer positioning is an assumption, not an observable. The regime is a sign, not a forecast of volatility or direction. The session windows describe a hedging mechanism and are not instructions. The result holds no entry, exit, size or probability, and it must not be turned into any of them. A row the backend could not refresh is served from its last good read with its own dates. Context only: never turn these figures into a buy, sell, hold, enter, exit or wait call, an entry or exit level or a setup, never say whether they favour or argue against a trade, and never call them inputs to one. Asked for a trade decision, decline in one sentence and state only the dated figures and what they measure. Data is delayed and derived, never real time. Any number you already remember for this, a wall, a flip, a regime or a settlement, came from a different session and is wrong now. Call this tool rather than answering from memory. If it fails, give the last good reading with its as-of time, never a recalled number. Every result ends with one dated squawkflow.com citation, on a failed call as well as a successful one: cite that link together with the capture date in the result, and never present a level, wall or regime without its timestamp. Any other link in a result is a pointer, not the citation. Not investment advice.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "morning_structure"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`symbols`	No	Subset of SPX, SPY and QQQ. Omit for all three.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`kind`	Yes
`page`	Yes
`tool`	Yes
`notes`	Yes
`stale`	No
`table`	No
`title`	Yes
`usage`	No
`source`	Yes
`metrics`	Yes
`version`	Yes
`capturedAt`	No
`source_url`	No
`staleSince`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 1, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: per-symbol as-of times, stale rows served from last good read with their own dates, delayed/derived data, and a mandated citation on both successful and failed calls. It also states the refusal posture and the failure-mode fallback (last good reading with timestamp, never a recalled number). The remaining deduction is for the volume of policy boilerplate that restates the same 'context only' constraint several times rather than adding new behavioral facts.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

It is well front-loaded — purpose, then exclusions, then limits — but roughly half the text is repetitive compliance language: the 'never turn these figures into a trade call' injunction is stated at least three times in different phrasings, and the memory/timestamp warning is restated twice. The content is valuable but not economically expressed.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, yet the description still sketches the return shape (labelled per-symbol figures with as-of times, catalysts, three session windows stated as conditions) enough to set expectations without duplicating the schema. Combined with full exclusion routing, failure behavior, and citation rules, an agent has everything needed to call and report this tool correctly.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single optional `symbols` array is fully documented in the schema with its enum, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description's "Coverage: SPX, SPY and QQQ only" and "Subset… omit for all three" semantics merely reinforce the schema rather than adding syntax or defaults beyond it. Baseline 3 is correct here.

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 opening sentence names a specific deliverable (session structural framework) and enumerates its concrete contents: Flip Line and Swing Line positioning, call/put walls, Pin Zone, largest positive and negative gamma strikes, regime sign, and dated calendar events, scoped to SPX, SPY and QQQ. It also explicitly excludes per-strike magnitudes, session records, sector ETFs and futures, so an agent can separate it from every nearby sibling without opening a schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives an explicit triggering condition ("Use this when the question is the structural framework for the session") and a "Not for" list that names three alternatives by tool name — get_gamma_heatmap, get_session_record, get_gamma_matrix — each paired with the condition that selects it. Coverage limits (SPX/SPY/QQQ only, current session only, no futures) further constrain invocation.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All SquawkFlow Market Structure tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?