Validate and safely normalize a user-supplied option-chain snapshot. Return corrections and a summary. Delete all temporary files before the response.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| rate | No | ||
| expiry | No | ||
| symbol | Yes | ||
| data_source | No | ||
| source_data | No | ||
| source_text | No | ||
| source_format | No | ||
| dividend_yield | No | ||
| rights_confirmed | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds a concrete side-effect disclosure: 'Delete all temporary files before the response.' This is useful behavioral context not captured in the annotations and does not contradict them because the deletion is limited to temporary files, not persistent user data.
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?
Three short sentences, each carrying distinct information: purpose, output, and side-effect. The purpose is front-loaded, and there is no redundant or filler text.
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?
With 9 parameters, zero schema descriptions, and no usage guidance, the description is too sparse for an agent to confidently construct a correct call. The output schema and annotations cover some gaps, but parameter semantics and alternative selection remain under-specified.
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 0%, and the description does not explain any of the 9 parameters. It only refers generically to a 'user-supplied option-chain snapshot', leaving required fields like 'symbol' and optional inputs such as 'source_data', 'rate', 'expiry', and 'rights_confirmed' completely unexplained. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the raw schema names.
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 a specific verb ('Validate') and identifies a distinct resource ('user-supplied option-chain snapshot'), while also stating the output ('Return corrections and a summary'). This clearly separates it from sibling tools like option_import_snapshot or option_delete_snapshot, even though those alternatives are not named.
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 phrase 'user-supplied option-chain snapshot' implies the tool is for validation of data the user provides, but there is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus option_import_snapshot, option_snapshot_schema, or option_chain_snapshot. No prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative conditions are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.