options_chains

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral transparency. It does not disclose any side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or data freshness. For a read-only tool, it should mention that no modifications occur.

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 extremely concise: two sentences with no wasted words. The purpose and parameter are front-loaded, making it quickly scannable.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so return values are covered, but given the large number of sibling tools related to options, the description lacks sufficient context to differentiate it. It does not explain what 'complete' entails or how results are structured.

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 description adds an example ('AAPL') and clarifies that symbol is a stock ticker, but with 0% schema description coverage, more detail would be helpful (e.g., allowed formats, case sensitivity). The addition provides marginal value over 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 it gets complete option chains for a stock symbol with a specific parameter. However, 'complete' is somewhat ambiguous and does not distinguish it from other options-related tools like 'find_options' or 'option_market_data' that may retrieve similar data.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'find_options', 'option_market_data', or the various 'schwab_option_chain' tools. This omission makes it harder for an agent to select the correct tool.

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