Retrieve one option contract row by contract code within a date range. Supply the contract code and start date, plus an optional end date, to fetch the contract details.
Get one option contract row by code within a date range.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| end_date | No | ||
| start_date | Yes | ||
| contract_code | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It hints at single-row semantics but says nothing about read-only nature, missing-contract behavior, whether the row is a snapshot or aggregated, or permission requirements.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; every clause carries information about what is returned and how it is constrained.
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 need not be explained. However, with zero annotation and zero schema-description coverage, the description is minimal for a tool whose parameter semantics and failure modes go unaddressed.
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. 'By code' maps to contract_code and 'within a date range' maps to start_date/end_date, but the optional end_date and what an open-ended range means are undocumented.
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 (get) and resource (one option contract row) plus the scoping keys (code, date range). 'Option' implicitly distinguishes it from get_futures_contract among siblings, but it never names a sibling explicitly, so it falls short of a 5.
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 indication of when to use this versus search_option_trades or get_derivatives_board. Usage is only inferable from the name and 'one row' phrasing; no prerequisites or exclusions are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.