chainvectorOptionsMaxPain

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses output contents (max pain expiry price, open-interest walls by strike) and an insightful behavior ('Price often pins near max pain into large expiries'). This goes beyond a minimal definition, though it omits details like return format or data refresh policies. The provided behavioral insight is genuinely useful and earns a 4.

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 three sentences: a clear definition, a list of outputs, and a practical market insight. It is front-loaded and every sentence contributes value without redundancy. Ideal size for the tool's complexity.

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?

For a relatively simple, read-only analytical tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description is complete. It explains what the tool does, what it returns, and a relevant behavioral pattern. It does not mention response structure, but that is acceptable given the absence of an output schema and the tool's straightforward nature. A small gap: no explicit note on supported currencies beyond the schema's examples, but overall it is sufficient.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters ('Expiry date filter' and 'Underlying'). The description adds no additional parameter-specific semantics, but since schema fully documents them, a baseline of 3 is appropriate. No extra value is needed.

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's purpose: computing options max pain for ChainVector, defined as 'the expiry price that minimizes total option-holder payout'. It also indicates it returns open-interest walls by strike, which distinguishes it from other chainvector tools like chainvectorOptionsImpliedProbability. The verb 'max pain' and specific resource make it unambiguous.

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 does not explicitly contrast this tool with alternatives. However, the note 'Price often pins near max pain into large expiries' implies relevance for larger expiries, and the parameter description 'omit for nearest' gives basic usage direction. There is no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives, but the name and context convey a clear use case.

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