get_option_chain

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden, but it only states the action without disclosing side effects, error behaviors, rate limits, or data freshness. The description is neutral but insufficient compared to the ideal of full transparency.

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 concise, with a single sentence summarizing the purpose followed by a clean Args list. Every sentence is necessary, and the structure is front-loaded for quick comprehension.

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 no output schema and three parameters, the description explains inputs well but does not describe the return value or data structure of the option chain. This is a notable gap for a tool that fetches complex financial data.

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?

Despite 0% schema coverage, the description thoroughly explains each parameter: ticker with an example, expiration_date with format 'YYYY-MM-DD', and option_type with explicit choices ('calls' or 'puts'). This adds critical meaning beyond the schema's type-only definitions.

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 clearly states 'Fetch the option chain for a given ticker symbol, expiration date, and option type,' specifying the verb and resource. It is distinct from sibling tools like 'get_option_expiration_dates' which only fetch dates, not the chain.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to fetch expiration dates first or when to use other financial data tools. The description lacks any context for choosing this tool over siblings.

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