Skip to main content
Glama

optionality_deal_scenario

Generate a fresh options trading scenario and open a journal entry.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
modeYes``historical`` | ``fiction`` | ``live`` — controls how the Firm grounds the scenario. ``live`` uses the provider's web_search tool and costs more tokens.
npubNoRequired. Your Nostr public key (npub1...) for credit billing.
sectorNoOptional market-sector hint (e.g., ``"biotech"``, ``"semis"``, ``"banks"``). When set, the Firm picks the underlying ticker from that sector and tailors catalysts / relevant_facts / red_herrings to its dynamics. Empty string = no constraint, Firm picks freely. Ignored on replays (the original scenario's ticker is reused).
difficultyYes``apprentice`` | ``journeyman`` | ``adept`` | ``sovereign`` for a fresh opportunity; ``mulligan`` only paired with replay_entry_id.
dpop_tokenNo
max_loss_usdNoOptional per-trade risk envelope in USD. When set, the Firm sizes the constraints (account size, sizing limits) so a thoughtful structure can fit the budget. Useful for trainees who reason better about $250 than $10,000 versions of the same trade.
replay_entry_idNoOptional id of an evaluated journal entry. When set, the wheel reissues that entry's scenario as a new play, forcing mode="historical" and difficulty="mulligan". Skips the LLM call — no new generation cost, just the operator's toll per the pricing model. The new play is journaled as its own entry; the original is untouched.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / mode / description
      Previous value: -"``historical`` | ``fiction`` | ``live`` — controls how the\nFirm grounds the scenario. ``live`` uses Anthropic's web_search\ntool and costs more tokens."New value: +"``historical`` | ``fiction`` | ``live`` — controls how the\nFirm grounds the scenario. ``live`` uses the provider's web_search\ntool and costs more tokens."
  2. First observed

TDQS

B3/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'generate and open a journal entry', omitting details like mode-dependent web search costs, parameter effects, or data persistence. Does not explain what 'open a journal entry' entails.

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?

The description is a single sentence, which is concise but undersized for a 7-parameter tool. It lacks structure or front-loading of key information, though it has no wasted words.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the tool's complexity (7 params, output schema), the description is too vague. It does not explain what a 'scenario' is, how journal entries work, or the role of required parameters. Inadequate for an agent to fully understand the tool's function.

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 high (86%), so baseline is 3. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema; it does not explain how parameters like mode, difficulty, or replay_entry_id affect behavior. No value added.

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 the verb 'generate' and the resources 'options trading scenario' and 'journal entry', distinguishing it from siblings like optionality_fetch_scenario (fetch existing) and optionality_judge_trade (judge trade).

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The description lacks context about required parameters or setup.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.