options_latest_quotesFetch best bid and ask quotes and contract sizes for up to 100 OCC option symbols; missing quotes return null to signal no data.
The latest best bid and ask per option contract (sizes in contracts); a side with no quote is null (no_data).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| occ_symbols | Yes | OCC option symbols, e.g. ["AAPL250117C00150000"] (1-100). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral detail beyond that: sizes are in contracts and a missing side is returned as null with a no_data reason, which tells the agent how to interpret incomplete results.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One dense sentence that front-loads the core resource and folds in the two non-obvious details (contract units, null handling) with zero padding. Nothing is wasted or buried.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a read-only, single-parameter quote lookup, the description covers the essentials and hints at the return shape (bid, ask, sizes, null sides). With no output schema, it could say more about the response envelope (timestamps, whether quotes are per-exchange or consolidated), but it is sufficient to call the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% and the single occ_symbols parameter is fully documented with format example and 1-100 bound. The description only reinforces 'per option contract' and adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb and resource: latest best bid/ask per option contract. It clearly distinguishes itself from trade-based siblings (options_latest_trades, options_trades) by naming bid/ask, though it never names an alternative explicitly, so sibling differentiation is implied rather than stated.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description offers no when-to-use guidance and no comparison against close alternatives such as options_snapshots, options_chain, or options_quotes. The agent must infer the use case entirely from the tool name and field names.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.