assets_get_options_chain

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states what the tool does ('retrieval'), but doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns real-time or delayed data, or what happens on errors. For a financial data tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in behavioral context.

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 a single, efficient sentence in Russian that directly states the tool's purpose with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with one parameter and good schema documentation, though the language barrier might affect accessibility for non-Russian speaking agents.

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 an output schema (which handles return values), 100% schema description coverage for the single parameter, and no complex nested structures, the description is reasonably complete. The main gaps are the lack of behavioral context (especially with no annotations) and usage guidelines, but for a relatively simple retrieval tool, it provides adequate context.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'symbol' fully documented in the input schema (including format, examples, pattern, and type). The description doesn't add any parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('Получение' - 'Retrieval') and the resource ('цепочки опционов для базового актива' - 'options chain for the underlying asset'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'assets_get' or 'assets_get_params', which could also retrieve asset-related data but for different purposes.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'assets_get' (which might retrieve general asset info) or 'market_data_get' tools (which might provide other market data), leaving the agent to infer usage context solely from the tool name and description.

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