get_options_chain_v2

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the transparency burden. It only says 'Get' and mentions 'advanced greeks and analysis', without disclosing output format, limitations, or whether it is purely read-only. This leaves significant behavioral aspects unexplained.

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, compact sentence with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the core purpose ('Get options chain data') and adds a brief qualifier. It is appropriately concise, though slightly vague on 'analysis'.

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?

With no output schema, the description should clarify what is returned and behavior around optional parameters like expiration_date. It only states 'options chain data' and 'greeks', leaving the overall context incomplete for an agent to predict tool behavior reliably.

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 input schema covers all three parameters with descriptions, and the tool description adds minimal extra semantics beyond hinting at greeks (aligned with include_greeks). This matches the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage, as the description does not compensate for any gaps.

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 'Get' and the specific resource 'options chain data', with additional detail on 'advanced greeks and analysis'. This definitively distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_stock_data_v2 and get_historical_data_v2, which focus on different data types.

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?

No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, but the resource type ('options chain') implies its usage context. It lacks any exclusions or mentions of when not to use it, so it only reaches implied usage level per the rubric.

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