get_option_chain

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds the ordering trait "nearest expirations first," which is genuine behavioral context, but says nothing about pagination, rate limits, or default date-range behavior when from_date/to_date are omitted.

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?

Two tightly packed sentences with zero filler; the return-value content comes first and the routing hint second, which is the right front-loading.

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 values need not be detailed further, and annotations cover the safety profile. The main gap is that default date-range behavior when from_date/to_date are omitted is left unstated, but for a read-only market-data tool this is minor.

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 coverage is 67%, with described params for symbol, from_date, to_date and strike_count. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond implying date filtering, and the undocumented contract_type and max_contracts remain unexplained in both places. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema does most of the work.

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?

Names the resource (option chain) and enumerates its payload precisely: bid/ask/mark, volume, open interest, implied volatility and greeks. It also distinguishes itself from the date-selection sibling get_option_expirations, so an agent can tell the two apart without opening a schema.

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?

"Use get_option_expirations to pick dates" explicitly routes the agent to the right alternative for the expiration-window parameters. It gives clear context but offers no exclusion guidance about the other siblings (e.g. get_quotes vs this chain), so it stops short of a full 5.

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