Skip to main content
Glama

HPSILab Quant Finance

by io.github.haiyunsky

Implied Volatility Radar

get_iv_radar
Read-onlyIdempotent

Implied-volatility (IV) structure for a stock: how expensive options are, whether volatility is being squeezed, and whether traders are paying up for upside (calls) or downside (puts). Available to all signed-in users.

Args:
    ticker: Stock symbol, e.g. "NVDA".
    refresh: Bypass the backend's fresh IV cache and request the latest
        option-chain pull. Defaults to False.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tickerYes
refreshNo

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare safe read/ idempotent behavior. The description adds context about the 'refresh' parameter bypassing cache and requesting latest data. This supplements the annotations with operational detail.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is two clear paragraphs: purpose first, then parameter details. No redundant sentences, though the opening sentence could be slightly tighter. Efficiently structured.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a simple read tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose and parameters. Lacks return format details, but the tool concept is well explained.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 0% schema description coverage, the Args section provides meaning: 'ticker' gets an example ('NVDA'), 'refresh' is explained as bypassing the IV cache to get latest option-chain pull, including default. This adds value beyond the bare schema.

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 description clearly states it provides 'Implied-volatility (IV) structure for a stock', specifying the resource and scope. It explicitly lists what it reveals (how expensive options are, volatility squeeze, call/put bias), distinguishing it from sibling tools like analyze_stock or get_option_pressure.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description indicates availability to all signed-in users and implies usage for IV analysis, but does not explicitly compare to alternatives or state when not to use it. The purpose is clear enough from the description.

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

All HPSILab Quant Finance toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Every tool has a clearly distinct purpose, from individual analytics like AI prediction and IV radar to aggregation and report generation. No overlapping functionality.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using snake_case, with verbs like get_, generate_, and analyze_. No mixing of conventions.

Tool Count5/5

9 tools is well-scoped for a quant finance server, covering diverse analytics and outputs without being excessive or sparse.

Completeness4/5

Covers major quant finance analyses and reporting. Minor gap: no raw data access tools, but the surface is comprehensive for the intended use case.

Resources