Get Options Chain

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 meaningful context beyond annotations by disclosing the output highlights (IV rank, expected move) and the strike selection methodology (bracket spot). This is useful behavioral detail without contradicting annotations.

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?

Two compact sentences, each with specific value. The first communicates the core output, the second explains strike selection and directs to siblings. No filler 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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description effectively communicates what the tool returns and why it matters. It covers the key outputs, the strike selection rationale, and sibling tools for extended needs. Minor gaps exist around exact response format or edge cases, but for a read-only data retrieval tool this is sufficiently complete.

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 100% with descriptive parameter entries for symbol, strikes, and expiration. The description does not add new parameter-level details beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score 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 clearly identifies the tool as retrieving an option chain around the money, with IV rank and expected move. It explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings by naming get_options_analytics and get_unusual_options as alternatives for different needs.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: 'For greeks and put/call skew as well, call get_options_analytics; to hunt unusual flow call get_unusual_options.' Also clarifies that strikes bracket spot rather than being pulled from one end, which shapes appropriate use.

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