get_us_options

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that Greeks (delta/gamma/theta) are not included, which is a key behavioral trait. It also explains default parameter behavior. However, it does not mention rate limits, authentication, or output structure (though an output schema exists). The transparency is adequate.

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 front-loaded with purpose and examples, followed by structured parameter details. It is not overly verbose, though the multilingual examples could be considered slightly extraneous. Overall, it is efficient and well-organized.

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's moderate complexity (3 parameters, no annotations, output schema present), the description covers purpose, defaults, exclusions, and parameters completely. It does not explain the output schema (handled elsewhere) or mention data freshness, but it is sufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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%, so the description must compensate. The 'Args' section explains each parameter in detail: ticker format ('AAPL'), expiration date format and default, and strikes_around_spot meaning and default value. This fully clarifies parameter semantics beyond the schema.

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 retrieves US options chains (calls/puts, IV, OI) and provides example queries like 'AAPL options' and 'NVDA implied volatility'. It also specifies what is not included (Greeks). This uniquely identifies the tool among siblings, as no other option-specific tool exists.

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 gives natural language example queries that effectively illustrate when to use the tool (e.g., 'AAPL options', 'Tesla 콜옵션'). It explains default behavior (nearest expiration, strikes near spot) but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives. However, given no sibling options tool, this is sufficient.

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