options_latest_tradesGet the current trade for each specified OCC option contract from the configured options feed.
The latest trade per option contract (OCC symbols), from the configured options_feed.
| 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=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety and idempotency profile is covered. The description adds that data comes from a 'configured options_feed', hinting at a potential dependency on external configuration, but doesn't detail the fallback behavior if the feed is unconfigured or the latency/refresh characteristics. This additional context is modest but useful.
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?
A single sentence that front-loads the key information: action (latest trade), scope (per option contract), and source (configured options_feed). No wasted words.
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 simple read-only tool with one parameter and full schema coverage, the description is adequate but not rich. It lacks information about return format (e.g., does it include timestamp, price, size?), pagination, or error handling. Given no output schema, the agent might need more context on what 'latest trade' includes, though annotations cover the read-only nature.
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 description coverage is 100%; the occ_symbols parameter is fully documented in the schema including format example and range. The description adds no parameter-level details beyond what the schema provides, 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 (retrieve latest trade) and resource (option contract, OCC symbols), distinguishing it from options_trades (historical) and options_latest_quotes (quotes). However, it doesn't explicitly name the siblings it differs from, so an agent must infer the distinction. The phrase 'from the configured options_feed' adds a mild scope qualifier but is not fully explained.
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?
No explicit when-to-use guidance is provided. It doesn't state 'use this when you need the most recent trade for specific contracts' or contrast with options_latest_quotes or options_snapshots. The agent must infer usage from the name and sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.