FinBrain MCP

options_put_call

Get normalized options put/call ratio time series for a ticker, with call and put counts, to analyze market sentiment. Filter by date and select JSON or CSV format.

Instructions

Normalized options put/call time series. JSON: { format: "json", ticker, name, series: [{date, put_call_ratio, call_count, put_count}, ...], # paged series_count, series_total } CSV: CSV text of the sliced series.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "req": "<req>"
    },
    "name": "options_put_call"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`req`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0May 29, 2026

TDQS

C2.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only status, rate limits, or any side effects. 'Normalized' is ambiguous and not explained.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is short but includes an output format example that is somewhat useful. However, the structure is messy (JSON embedded in plain text). It could be more concise and better organized.

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

Completeness2/5

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

With no output schema and low parameter description, the description lacks completeness. It does not explain the meaning of 'normalized', the data granularity (daily? intraday?), or the put_call_ratio calculation.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds minimal parameter meaning beyond the schema. The output format example hints at the 'format' and 'limit' parameters but does not clarify the others like 'ticker' or date ranges.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states 'Normalized options put/call time series,' which conveys the resource but lacks a specific verb (e.g., 'retrieves' or 'lists'). It does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'screener_put_call_ratio' or other time-series tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of prerequisites, context, or when not to use it. The description does not help the agent decide between this and similar siblings.

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