get_option_greeks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to repeat safety traits. It adds no behavioral details beyond stating that it retrieves Greeks, which is consistent with the annotations. No contradictions.

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 concise with a one-line purpose statement followed by a structured Args section. It is front-loaded with the main action. Every sentence provides useful information, though the Args formatting is slightly more verbose than necessary.

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 (not shown), the description need not detail return values. It covers input parameters adequately but omits information about error handling, rate limits, or behavior for invalid symbols. The description is adequate for a simple 2-parameter tool but not fully 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides a meaningful explanation of 'osi_symbols' with an example format ('OSI-normalized option symbols') and clarifies that 'account_id' is optional if the environment variable is set. This adds significant value over the bare 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 the tool returns option Greeks (delta, gamma, theta, vega, rho, IV) for option symbols. It uses specific verb 'Get' and resource 'option Greeks.' However, it does not explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'get_option_greek' (singular), though the plural name and array parameter imply batch usage.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as the singular 'get_option_greek' or other option-related tools. There is no discussion of prerequisites, scenarios, or exclusions.

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