Skip to main content
Glama
Tickerrisk

TickerRisk MCP Server

by Tickerrisk

scan_ticker

Check if selling puts or covered calls is risky over a chosen expiry window; return a 0-100 catalyst score for earnings, FDA decisions, legal filings, and expected moves.

Instructions

Check how risky it is to sell or buy an option on a stock, over a specific expiry window.

Use this whenever someone asks whether it is safe to sell a put or a covered call on a ticker, whether a premium is "too good", what could gap a stock before expiry, or what catalysts are coming up for a company.

Returns a 0-100 catalyst-risk score (higher = riskier) plus the specific events driving it: earnings dates, FDA decisions, legal filings, SEC events, and the implied-volatility expected move. The key idea is that risk depends on the expiry window — a stock can be LOW risk for a 1-week option and HIGH risk for a 6-week option that spans an earnings report.

Args: ticker: Stock symbol, e.g. "AAPL", "HPE", "KO". expiry_weeks: How many weeks until the option expires (1-52). Match this to the actual trade being considered. Defaults to 4 (~30 DTE, the typical premium-selling horizon).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tickerYes
expiry_weeksNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.3

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden, and it does explain the return shape (0-100 score plus driving events and the IV expected move) and the central mechanic that risk is window-dependent. It does not disclose whether the call is read-only, data freshness/source, or any rate/latency characteristics, which is the remaining gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 purpose and the key risk-window insight are front-loaded, and the sentence about LOW risk for 1-week versus HIGH risk for a 6-week window spanning earnings is high-value. It runs a bit long for two parameters, and the Args block partly restates schema fields, but given 0% schema coverage that restatement earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description is not obligated to explain return values, yet it still names the score and driving events. Combined with the parameter guidance and the expiry-window model, an agent has everything needed to invoke this 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description fully compensates: it gives example ticker values, states the expiry_weeks range (1-52), explains the default of 4 as ~30 DTE and why that is the typical premium-selling horizon. This is meaningfully more than the bare integer 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?

States a specific verb+resource (assess option-selling/buying risk on a stock over an expiry window) and the concrete artifact it produces (a 0-100 catalyst-risk score). Sibling names like find_covered_calls and find_wheel_candidates describe other option workflows, and this one is clearly the risk-scan, so the agent can distinguish it without opening a schema.

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?

Strong trigger-based guidance: it enumerates the user questions that select this tool ('is it safe to sell a put', 'is the premium too good', 'what could gap the stock', 'what catalysts are coming up'). It does not explicitly name the sibling tools or state when NOT to use it (e.g. versus find_covered_calls), 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.