Yahoo options chain

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

The description does not contradict any annotations (all are consistent). It adds context about the data fields (strikes, bid/ask, IV, OI, volume) but does not elaborate on behavioral traits like rate limits or data freshness. Given annotations already indicate a safe read operation, the description provides moderate added value.

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 extremely concise—two sentences that convey all necessary information without any wasted words. Every sentence adds value.

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 the tool has only 2 parameters, no output schema, and comprehensive annotations, the description adequately covers what the tool does and how to use it. It mentions the key data fields and parameter behavior.

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 description adds meaning beyond the schema: it explains the `expiration` parameter (Unix epoch seconds) and that omitting it returns the nearest expiry. With 100% schema coverage, this provides helpful clarification.

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 returns options chain data for a symbol, including expirations and option details. It uses specific verbs and resource, but does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like cboe_options_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?

The description indicates when to pass or omit the `expiration` parameter, providing clear usage context. However, it does not mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like cboe_options_chain or provide exclusion criteria.

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