Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
polygon-mcp

polygon-mcp

by atomcp-ai
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

reference_get_option_contract

Retrieve option contract details by ticker symbol. Optionally specify a date to get information as of that date.

Instructions

Get info about an option contract.

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": {
      "ticker": "<ticker>"
    },
    "name": "reference_get_option_contract"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tickerYes
as_of_dateNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.2/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits on its own. It only states 'Get info', implying a read operation, but does not explain return format, error conditions, rate limits, or how as_of_date affects behavior. This is insufficient 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 description is a single, short sentence with no unnecessary words, making it easy to parse. However, it is so brief that it borders on under-specification, though it still presents the core action clearly.

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 tool has 2 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description lacks details on return values, parameter formats, or how this relates to similar reference tools. This is inadequate for a tool in a large family of options and reference endpoints.

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?

The input schema includes 'ticker' and 'as_of_date', but the description does not mention either parameter or their roles. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving the agent to guess how to construct a valid request.

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 uses the verb 'Get' and resource 'option contract', indicating a read operation. However, it does not specify what type of information is returned or how the contract is identified, making it somewhat vague. It does distinguish from sibling reference_get_option_contracts by singular/plural, but not clearly.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, typical use cases, or situations where other tools like reference_get_option_contracts or options_get_snapshot would be more appropriate. This leaves the agent without decision support.

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