Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
bca-mcp

bca-mcp

by blockchainacademics
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

get_options_flow

Retrieve implied volatility, strike heatmap, and block trades for a cryptocurrency symbol from Deribit, Lyra, and Aevo to track options flow.

Instructions

IV, strike heatmap, block trades (Deribit + Lyra + Aevo). Pro tier.

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>"
    },
    "name": "get_options_flow"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
symbolYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.3.1

TDQS

D1.7/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

No annotations provided, so description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions exchanges and 'Pro tier', failing to specify whether the tool is read-only, return format, or any constraints. This is insufficient for safe invocation.

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?

Description is extremely concise at one line, but this brevity sacrifices necessary detail. While front-loaded, it does not earn its place due to lack of informative content.

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?

Given the complexity of options data and minimal schema, description is grossly incomplete. No indication of output format, data fields, or pagination. Missing crucial information for a tool with a single required parameter.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, description must explain the meaning of 'symbol'. It does not clarify that symbol likely represents a ticker or underlying asset, leaving the parameter's role ambiguous.

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

Purpose2/5

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

Description uses cryptic terms 'IV, strike heatmap, block trades' without a clear verb indicating what the tool does. It mentions exchanges and 'Pro tier' but lacks a straightforward statement like 'Retrieves options flow data'. This is vague and does not effectively convey purpose compared to sibling 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 such as get_funding_rates or get_liquidation_heatmap. Description omits context about symbol requirements or data applicability, leaving 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