Search option market statistics by date, symbol, and type (call, put, all) to retrieve trade data.
Search option market statistics (call, put, or all).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| offset | No | ||
| symbol | No | ||
| end_date | No | ||
| start_date | Yes | ||
| only_active | No | ||
| option_type | No | all |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it says nothing about pagination, rate limits, ordering, or permissions for what is clearly a query tool with limit/offset semantics. The presence of an output schema covers return values, but the operational behavior is undisclosed.
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?
A single tight sentence with no filler, and the resource is front-loaded. It is perhaps overly terse for a 7-parameter tool, but nothing wasted.
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?
Given 7 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and multiple look-alike sibling search tools, the description omits far too much to let an agent invoke this correctly. The output schema handles return values, but parameter usage and safe operation remain undocumented.
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% across 7 parameters, so the description must compensate and does not. It only gestures at option_type (call/put/all) while leaving start_date, end_date, symbol, limit, offset, and only_active completely unexplained in both schema and text.
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 clear verb+resource: search option market statistics. The word "option" implicitly separates it from siblings like search_futures_trades and search_physical_trades, though it never names an alternative directly.
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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives among the many sibling search_* tools, and no prerequisites such as required date ranges. The agent is left to infer that this is the option-specific counterpart of the other search tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.