Get Option Chain

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results are a bounded list of qualified candidates and that only single-leg contracts are included, which is useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't explain what qualifies a candidate, how bounds are determined, or what the returned list represents beyond being qualified.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It communicates the core action and a key result constraint efficiently. Every word earns its place.

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?

Despite having an output schema, this tool is complex with 10 parameters and 0% schema description coverage. The description does not explain parameter interactions, default behavior for strike_count and max_candidates, how expiry filters combine, or what 'qualified candidates' means. An agent would need substantial external knowledge to invoke this 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%, and the description provides no parameter-level meaning. With 10 parameters including rights, expiries, strike filters, strike_count, max_candidates, and option_exchange, an agent gets no help understanding their roles or relationships from the description. The schema itself has minimal descriptions and no enums, so the burden falls entirely on the description, which fails to carry it.

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 discovers single-leg option contracts for an underlying and returns a bounded list of qualified candidates. This is more specific than the title alone and gives a distinct sense of the tool's purpose. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling get_option_snapshot, but the mention of a bounded candidate list helps an agent infer the distinction.

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 no guidance about when to prefer this tool over siblings such as get_option_snapshot or resolve_contract. There are no explicit conditions, exclusions, or alternative tools mentioned. The usage context is only implied by the phrase 'for an underlying,' which is not enough for an agent deciding among many related option tools.

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