Skip to main content
Glama
PatrickSUDO

firstrade-mcp-server

by PatrickSUDO

get_option_chain

Fetch option chain data for a stock symbol, listing available expiration dates or a specific chain filtered by strike range.

Instructions

Get the broker's own option chain for a stock symbol.

Args: symbol: Underlying ticker, e.g. 'NVDA'. exp_date: Expiration as 'YYYYMMDD' (or 'YYYY-MM-DD'). Omit to list the available expiration dates instead of returning a chain. strike_min / strike_max: Optional inclusive strike filter (0 = no bound). Full chains on NVDA/MU/CRWD exceed the MCP result-size cap (~100-140k chars); pass a band around spot (e.g. ±15%) to keep the payload small.

Returns JSON: {"items": [{exp_date, day_left, exp_type}, ...]} when exp_date is omitted, else the chain for that expiration (filtered if bounds given).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
symbolYes
exp_dateNo
strike_maxNo
strike_minNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden and does so effectively. It explains the data returned in both modes, the impact of optional parameters, and the operational constraint about large option chains exceeding the MCP response cap.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is front-loaded with the primary action and uses a compact 'Args' section. No wasted words; every sentence adds operational value.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given four parametersanged, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers all parameters, both invocation modes, the exact return shape when listing expirations, and the critical size-cap warning. An agent has enough context to call it correctly.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description fully compensates by explaining symbol, exp_date behavior, and the role of strike_min/strike_max, including numeric filtering semantics and defaults.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get the broker's own option chain for a symbol.' This clearly identifies what the tool returns and is distinct enough from sibling quote/order/greeks tools, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.

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 gives concrete usage rules: omit exp_date to list expirationstar, and use strike_min/strike_max to avoid response-size issues. It does not, however, compare against sibling tools such as get_option_greeks, so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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