Skip to main content
Glama
Johnhyeon

StockLens

by Johnhyeon
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Remote

get_us_options

Read-onlyIdempotent

Fetch US options chains with calls/puts, implied volatility, and open interest for any US ticker, with optional expiration and strike range selection.

Instructions

US options chain — 미국 주식 옵션 체인 (calls/puts, IV, OI · US equity options). "AAPL options", "Tesla 콜옵션", "NVDA implied volatility", "옵션 체인" 같은 질문에 사용합니다.

기본: 최근접 만기의 현재가 근처 strike. Greeks (delta/gamma/theta)는 미포함.

Args: ticker: US 티커 (예: "AAPL") expiration: 만기일 "YYYY-MM-DD". 미지정 시 가장 가까운 만기. strikes_around_spot: 현재가 기준 좌우 strike 개수 (기본 10)

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tickerYes
expirationNo
strikes_around_spotNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed4 schema fields changedv1.1.3
    • removedInput schema / properties / expiration / anyOf
      Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]
    • removedInput schema / properties / expiration / default
      Removed value: -null
    • addedInput schema / properties / expiration / type
      Added value: +"string"
    • removedInput schema / properties / strikes_around_spot / default
      Removed value: -10
  2. First observedv0.4.0

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/non-destructive behavior, and the description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: default to nearest expiration, strikes near the current price, and that Greeks are excluded. This is meaningful extra information that helps an agent set expectations.

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 front-loaded with purpose and example queries, then parameter details. Some bilingual redundancy exists, but the structure is logical and all sections earn their place.

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?

Given the output schema exists and the annotations cover safety, the description is complete enough for an agent to call the tool correctly. It covers defaults, exclusions, and parameter semantics; only minor details like how IV/OI are represented in the response are left to the schema.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden for parameters. It explains ticker with an example, specifies expiration format ('YYYY-MM-DD') and its default, and defines strikes_around_spot as the count around the current price with a default of 10. This fully compensates for the sparse 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 identifies a specific resource ('US options chain') and the key data it returns (calls/puts, IV, OI), and includes concrete example queries like 'AAPL options' and 'NVDA implied volatility'. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings such as get_us_price or get_us_info.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool ('같은 질문에 사용합니다') and provides sensible defaults (nearest expiration, strikes around spot). It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternative tools, so it falls just short of a 5.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools