get_max_pain

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return format ('raw MaxPainResponse JSON: symbol, spotPrice, timestamp, and results[]...'), explains the expiration parameter's behavior, and notes the slower performance for 'all'. It also mentions the 15-min delay on free plans. This is strong transparency, though it doesn't explicitly state the read-only nature or potential rate limits beyond plan info.

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 well-structured into Plan, Args, and Returns sections. Every sentence is informative: concept, plan limitations, parameter details, and return schema. No wasted words or redundancy.

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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is exceptionally complete. It covers the concept, plan limitations, parameter semantics, and return fields. The tool is a simple data retrieval, and all necessary context is provided without needing external documentation.

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 is 0%, but the description fully compensates with an 'Args:' section that explains both parameters. For symbol, it provides examples ('AAPL', 'SPY', 'NDAQ'). For expiration, it clarifies it is a Unix timestamp, supports 'all' (slower/complete), and notes omission defaults to nearest expiry. This adds meaning far beyond the bare schema.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Max Pain per expiration — the strike that minimizes total option value...' This is a specific verb+resource with a defined concept, and it distinguishes itself from siblings like get_greeks, get_gex, and get_flow by focusing on max pain.

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 description gives clear context for usage, including plan information ('Free (1 symbol, 15-min delay) and up') and detailed expiration behavior ('Omit for the nearest expiry', '"all" for every expiration'). However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or when not to use this tool, which would earn a 5.

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