get_option_chain

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It states what data is returned (strike prices, premiums, OI, change in OI, IV) but does not disclose any limitations, performance characteristics, or potential errors. The transparency is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 and front-loaded with the purpose. It includes a helpful example in a single paragraph. Minor improvement could be making it even more succinct.

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 lack of output schema, the description lists key fields but does not detail the return structure or any nested data. For a tool returning a full option chain, more detail on the response format would improve completeness.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description adds meaning by explaining the 'symbol' parameter (indices vs. stocks) and the default for 'is_index' through examples. However, it does not provide formal parameter descriptions, so the compensation is partial.

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 retrieves the full option chain with specific fields like strike prices, premiums, OI, etc. It specifies valid inputs (indices like NIFTY, BANKNIFTY, FINNIFTY; stocks as NSE symbols) and provides examples, effectively distinguishing it from related tools like get_oi_data or get_pcr.

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 clear context for when to use the tool (for indices or NSE stocks) and includes example calls. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternative tools for related data (e.g., get_max_pain).

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