option_surface_summarySummarizes option positioning - volume, open interest, ratios, and implied volatility - for key strikes across up to 12 consecutive expirations.
Summarize option positioning across up to 12 consecutive expirations.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| top_n | No | ||
| symbol | Yes | ||
| start_index | No | ||
| max_expiries | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and non-destructive behavior, so safety and idempotency are covered. The description adds the scope constraint of 12 expirations, which is useful operational context. But it omits what 'positioning' summary actually contains and any data-source or rate-limit behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One compact sentence with no filler; the scope constraint is front-loaded. It is appropriately sized, though the brevity comes at the cost of leaving parameters undocumented.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, with 4 parameters at 0% schema description coverage and no sibling differentiation, the description is too thin for an agent to invoke the tool correctly without guessing at parameter meanings.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for four undocumented parameters (symbol, top_n, start_index, max_expiries). It mentions only the expiry window, leaving top_n, start_index, and max_expiries entirely unexplained. This is a significant gap given zero schema documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a verb (Summarize) and resource (option positioning) with a scope constraint (up to 12 consecutive expirations). However, it does not distinguish itself from siblings like option_positioning_summary, whose name suggests overlapping purpose. The agent must guess how this differs from the more specific-sounding sibling.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this versus option_positioning_summary, option_chain, or option_expirations. The only contextual clue is the scope, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement, leaving selection entirely to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.