Get Options Chain

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

With no annotations available, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Current' hints at data freshness, but nothing is said about scope, limitations, or what the returned chain contains. The description is not misleading, but it is behaviorally thin.

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 text is short and front-loaded with no wasted words. However, for a tool with parameters and many closely related siblings, the brevity crosses into under-description, so it is concise but not appropriately informative.

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?

An output schema exists, so return structure is covered, but the description leaves out critical context: what the options chain data contains, which asset it applies to, and when to use this instead of sibling tools. With no annotations and this minimal description, the package is incomplete.

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 description coverage is 0%, yet the description mentions none of the available parameters like min_oi or base_coin. The description adds no semantic value beyond the schema, so an agent cannot understand parameter meaning from the tool definition description at all.

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 identifies the action ('Get') and the resource ('options chain data'), so an agent can tell this is a data retrieval tool. However, it does not distinguish it from sibling analysis tools like get_open_interest_analysis or get_vol_surface_metrics, which limits its clarity.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many analysis siblings. The description is a bare statement of function with no mention of filters, base currency, or use cases, so the agent must infer when to call it.

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