schwab_option_chain

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only describes parameters and the action 'Get,' but fails to state that this is a read-only operation, any authentication requirements, or potential rate limits. The behavioral transparency is minimal.

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 lines of purpose and a four-line parameter list. Every sentence serves a purpose, and the key action is front-loaded. No extraneous text.

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?

Given the tool has an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values. However, it could mention that the chain includes all expiration dates or standard fields. For a basic retrieval tool, the description is nearly complete.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds meaning for all four parameters: 'symbol' is defined as 'Stock ticker symbol', 'contract_type' with allowed values, 'strike_count' explained, and 'include_underlying_quote' clarified. This compensates well for the barren 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 begins with 'Get option chain for a symbol,' which clearly identifies the action and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'schwab_option_chain_by_expiration' or 'schwab_option_expirations' that also retrieve option 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. It only lists parameters without any context about preferred scenarios or exclusion cases, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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