MCP Yahoo Finance

get_option_summary

Summarize option interest, volume, volatility, ratios, and max pain for a stock symbol and expiration date to gauge market sentiment and positioning.

Instructions

Summarize option interest, volume, volatility, ratios, and max pain.

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>",
      "expiration_date": "<expiration_date>"
    },
    "name": "get_option_summary"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`limit`	No	Maximum contracts considered per side, from 1 to 100.
`symbol`	Yes	Stock symbol in Yahoo Finance format.
`expiration_date`	Yes	Expiration date in YYYY-MM-DD format.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv0.2.0Oct 1, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It lists summary metrics but does not state whether the data is read-only, how fresh it is, what permissions are needed, or how the summary is computed.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently lists the core metrics the tool summarizes.

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

Completeness3/5

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

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should do more to explain the result shape and usage context. It lists the metrics covered, which is helpful, but leaves behavioral and selection details unaddressed.

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 100%, so the input schema already documents symbol, expiration_date, and limit in detail. The description adds no parameter-level information beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description states a clear verb ('Summarize') and a specific set of option data points: interest, volume, volatility, ratios, and max pain. It does not differentiate this tool from siblings like get_option_chain, but the purpose itself is unambiguous.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_option_chain or get_option_expiration_dates. Usage is only implied by the tool name and the metrics listed.

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