TradingAgents MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

options_overview

Get an options market overview for a ticker: implied volatility term structure, expected moves, skew, put/call open interest, max pain, realized volatility, and next earnings date.

Instructions

Options market overview, computed in code from Yahoo's live chains: implied volatility term structure, market-implied move per expiry (from the at-the-money straddle), 25-delta skew, put/call open interest, max pain, recent realized volatility and the next earnings date. Today only; mostly US listings.

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": "options_overview"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`as_of`	No
`ticker`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.0Nov 7, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose material traits: the data is code-computed from Yahoo live chains, it is a same-day snapshot only, and coverage skews to US listings. It stops short of failure modes (behavior for non-US tickers, data staleness or rate limits), which keeps it off a 5.

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?

One front-loaded sentence introduces the tool, then the metric list does the detail work with no filler. It runs long and is comma-chained, but every clause names a distinct computed output rather than padding.

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

Completeness4/5

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

An output schema exists, so return formatting needn't be described. For a two-parameter read-only analytics tool the description covers what is computed, data source, and time/geography scope; the remaining gap is how it relates to sibling options tools.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. 'Today only' meaningfully constrains what as_of can reasonably do, which is real added meaning, but it never states the accepted format or whether as_of is honored at all, and ticker is left entirely to inference.

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?

Names a specific resource (options market overview) and enumerates exactly what is computed: IV term structure, ATM-straddle implied move per expiry, 25-delta skew, put/call OI, max pain, realized vol, next earnings. It also states provenance ('computed in code from Yahoo's live chains'), which separates these derived metrics from the raw chain tool.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Applicability constraints are stated ('Today only; mostly US listings'), which implicitly guides when the tool is valid. However, there is no explicit routing versus close siblings such as options_chain (raw strikes/expiries) or options_strategy, and no when-not-to-use guidance.

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