hvip MCP Server

agent_option_scanner

Scans full options market data for a specified underlying, including open interest, expiration/strike distribution, put-call ratio, and block trades.

Instructions

[L:READ] CAT:[市场扫描] | 期权全景扫描：概要+OI到期/行权价分布+PCR+大宗交易量

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": {
      "uly": "<uly>"
    },
    "name": "agent_option_scanner"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`uly`	Yes	标的，如 BTC-USD、ETH-USD。必填

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.6.1Jul 30, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

The [L:READ] label indicates a read operation, but no annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the data categories returned but omits any behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, or side effects. Given the read-only nature, this is adequate but not exhaustive.

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?

The description is very short and front-loaded with useful labels ([L:READ], category). Every sentence provides essential information. The mixed Chinese-English is acceptable for the domain but slightly reduces universal clarity.

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?

Given the tool aggregates multiple option metrics and has no output schema, the description accurately sets expectations for the type of data returned (summary, OI distribution, PCR, block volume). It is complete enough for an agent to understand the tool's scope, though exact output structure is unspecified.

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 coverage is 100% with one parameter (uly) described in the schema. The tool description does not add any parameter-level detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already documents the parameter sufficiently.

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?

The description clearly states the tool performs a 'panoramic scan' of options, providing summary, OI expiry/strike distribution, PCR, and block trading volume. This specific verb-resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools that cover individual metrics like okx_get_option_oi_expiry or okx_get_option_taker_block_volume.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description implies use for a comprehensive options overview, contrasting with sibling tools that focus on single metrics. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use this tool or mention of alternative tools for more granular data.

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

Deploy Server