get_tickersList all available stock/ETF tickers with live options data.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| apiKey | No | FlashAlpha API key. Omit when calling via /mcp-oauth (OAuth flow); required on /mcp. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / properties / apiKey / defaultAdded value: +nullInput schema / properties / apiKey / descriptionPrevious value: -"Your FlashAlpha API key"New value: +"FlashAlpha API key. Omit when calling via /mcp-oauth (OAuth flow); required on /mcp."Input schema / properties / apiKey / typePrevious value: -"string"New value: +[
+ "string",
+ "null"
+]Input schema / requiredRemoved value: -[
- "apiKey"
-]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true. The description goes beyond by specifying that the list is filtered to tickers with 'live options data', which informs the agent about a behavioral trait not present in the annotations. No contradiction found.
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?
The description is a single sentence, front-loaded with the action, and contains no redundant or filler content.
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?
The tool is simple (one optional param, no output schema), and the description sufficiently explains what it returns (a list of tickers) and the filter applied. It doesn't mention pagination or return format, but for a list operation this is not critical.
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 for the single parameter (apiKey) is 100% and the parameter's description is clear. The tool description does not need to add parameter details, and it doesn't. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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?
The description uses the verb 'List' with a specific resource ('all available stock/ETF tickers') and adds the qualifier 'with live options data', which clearly distinguishes it from sibling listing tools like get_symbols and get_universe.
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 tool's purpose is self-evident, so usage is implied: use it when you need a list of tickers with live options data. However, there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it differs from alternatives like get_symbols or get_universe.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Many tools have overlapping scopes: get_stock_summary, get_volatility, get_vrp, and get_exposure_summary all return comprehensive analytics with shared metrics, making it hard to pick the right one. The flow family (get_flow_live, get_flow_summary, get_flow_scan, get_flow_signals, etc.) has significant redundancy — get_flow_live bundles data also available via separate tools.
Tool names mostly follow a consistent get_<noun> pattern, with clear subgroups like get_historical_* and get_*_exposure. Minor deviations exist: post_screener, post_structure_pnl, calculate_greeks, and solve_iv break the get_ convention, but they are still predictable and readable.
With 73 tools, this is far beyond the 3–15 tool sweet spot and even the 50+ extreme mismatch threshold. While the domain is broad, the enormous surface is bloated by near-duplicate historical replay variants (18 get_historical_* tools) and multiple overlapping summary endpoints, making it unwieldy for an agent.
The tool set provides thorough coverage of options analytics: quotes, chains, greeks, volatility surface, VRP, exposure, flow, historical replay, screening, and strategy analysis. There are no obvious dead ends — core workflows like calculating greeks, getting exposure, and screening the universe are all supported.