Schwab MCP

get_option_expirations

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve all listed option expiration dates for an underlying symbol, including days to expiration, to plan options trades and compare time horizons.

Instructions

All listed option expiration dates for an underlying, with days to expiration.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "symbol": "<symbol>"
    },
    "name": "get_option_expirations"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`symbol`	Yes	Underlying ticker.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 29, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world behavior, so the safety profile is fully covered without the description. The description adds only 'days to expiration' as return-content context, which is slight but useful given no other behavioral disclosures like ordering or pagination.

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?

One tight sentence with no filler, and the key scope (underlying, expiration dates) is front-loaded. It is efficient, though it stops before any statement that would help an agent choose it over alternatives.

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 one-parameter read tool with an output schema that carries return structure and annotations that carry the safety profile, the description tells the agent what it gets. The main gap is absence of routing guidance against get_option_chain in the adjacent toolset.

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?

With a single parameter at 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents 'symbol' as the underlying ticker. The description's use of 'underlying' reinforces meaning but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, matching the baseline 3.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (lists) and resource (option expiration dates) scoped to an underlying, and adds the returned derivative (days to expiration). It is distinguishable from get_option_chain in scoping but never names the sibling, so it stops short of explicit differentiation.

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?

There is no when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no mention of the obvious alternative get_option_chain. The usage is only implied by the phrase 'for an underlying' and the tool name, so an agent gets little routing help.

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

Deploy Server