Option Chain

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered elsewhere. The description adds only the word 'filtered' and 'contract-level', giving no insight into result size, pagination, live vs delayed data, or what the filters actually gate.

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 single sentence is front-loaded and free of waste, which is good. However, for an 8-parameter, 0%-documented tool it is under-specified rather than truly concise, so it cannot earn a top score.

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 explained, but the description fails on the input side: eight parameters with no schema descriptions receive zero compensating explanation. For a contract-level chain endpoint this leaves the definition materially 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% across 8 parameters, and the description does not mention a single one of them. Core filters like min_strike/max_strike, min_volume, min_open_interest, option_type and limit_per_side are entirely undocumented, so an agent must guess their semantics and units.

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?

States a specific verb ('Return'), resource ('contract-level option chain') and scope ('one expiration'), which distinguishes it from option_expirations (list of expirations) and the summary tools. It stops short of naming an explicit sibling alternative, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 when-to-use guidance is given beyond the implied prerequisite of 'one expiration'. It never states how this differs from option_greeks, option_surface_summary, or the other siblings, leaving the agent to infer selection criteria from names alone.

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