Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
ib-async-mcp

ib-async-mcp

by atomcp-ai
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

calculate_option_price

Calculate the theoretical price of an option using Black-Scholes or similar model based on provided volatility, expiry, strike, right, and underlying price.

Instructions

Calculate option price from volatility.

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": {
      "symbol": "<symbol>",
      "expiry": "<expiry>",
      "strike": "<strike>",
      "right": "<right>",
      "volatility": "<volatility>",
      "underlying_price": "<underlying_price>"
    },
    "name": "calculate_option_price"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
symbolYes
expiryYes
strikeYes
rightYes
volatilityYes
underlying_priceYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.1

TDQS

C2.3/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states the basic function, with no disclosure of behavioral traits such as requiring market data, assumptions about volatility, or output format.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

Excessively brief single sentence lacks informative details. Not effectively concise as it omits critical information such as parameter explanations or return value.

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

Completeness1/5

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

The description fails to provide sufficient context for a tool with 6 required parameters and no output schema. Missing details on what the tool returns, assumptions, or how to interpret results.

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

Parameters1/5

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

None of the 6 parameters have descriptions in the schema (0% coverage), and the description adds no meaning beyond parameter names. The description does not compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states the tool calculates option price from volatility, using a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'calculate_implied_volatility' which likely does the inverse.

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 like 'calculate_implied_volatility'. No context about prerequisites or scenarios where this tool is appropriate.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools