get_option_greek

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description doesn't need to repeat safety. It adds minimal behavioral context beyond purpose, such as mentioning the specific Greeks returned. No contradictions, and the presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but no additional traits (e.g., rate limits, caching) are disclosed.

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 and a parameter list. Every sentence adds value, with no redundancy or fluff. It is front-loaded with the main action and then details the parameters.

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 simple nature of the tool (get greeks for one symbol), the presence of an output schema (reducing need to describe returns), and good parameter coverage, the description is complete. It covers all necessary input details for an agent to invoke the 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%, so the description must compensate. It does so effectively by explaining 'osi_symbol' as an OSI-normalized option symbol with an example ('AAPL260320C00280000') and clarifying that 'account_id' is optional if the environment variable is set. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's type-only definitions.

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 retrieves option Greeks (delta, gamma, theta, vega, rho, IV) for a single option symbol. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'get_option_greeks' (likely bulk) and 'get_option_chain' (full chain) by specifying 'single option symbol' and listing specific Greeks.

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 explicit parameter guidance: 'osi_symbol' is required and shown with an example, 'account_id' is optional if PUBLIC_COM_ACCOUNT_ID is set. This indicates when to use the tool (when you have a single OSI symbol). It does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives, but the sibling context makes it clear.

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