US equity options candidates

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that data is deterministic ('identical for every buyer'), impersonal, and excludes trade plans or verdicts. It lists the metrics provided, offering transparency about what the output includes, though it omits operational details like data freshness or limitations.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence efficiently lists the core purpose and metrics, while the second sentence is essential for setting expectations about non-advice. Both sentences earn their place.

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 no-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is quite complete. It explains what is returned (ranked candidates with metrics and illustrative contract) and what is not (advice or trade plan). It lacks details on interpretation or data source, but this is sufficient for basic tool selection.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description adds value by enumerating the metrics that appear in the output (signal strength, ATR%, RSI, etc.), which helps the agent anticipate the result even without parameters.

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 provides ranked short-term US equity options candidates with specific metrics. It uses a specific verb ('ranked') and resource ('options candidates'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like crypto_research or municipal_income by focusing on US equity options.

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 implies use for obtaining research data, but does not explicitly say when to use it versus alternatives. It does clarify what it is not (advice, trade plan, buy/sell verdict), which helps set expectations, but lacks direct comparison to sibling tools or explicit use cases.

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