get_option_greeks

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

The annotation openWorldHint: true is present, and the description adds no additional behavioral disclosure. It doesn't mention authentication needs, data freshness, potential large response size, or any side effects. The verb 'Get' implies a read, but the description does not elaborate on the open-world implications.

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 a single, focused sentence that names the data and scope. It has no redundant information, making it highly concise and front-loaded.

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 2 parameters and a well-described schema, but lacks an output schema. The description names the Greek fields but doesn't specify the return structure (e.g., a list per strike). It also doesn't mention any prerequisites or limitations. This leaves some ambiguity about the response format.

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 input schema provides 100% coverage with descriptive parameter descriptions (e.g., 'Symbol name (e.g. NIFTY, BANKNIFTY, SBIN)'). The description uses 'underlying' and 'expiry' but adds no additional meaning beyond 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 uses the specific verb 'Get' and names the precise resource: option Greeks (Delta, Gamma, Theta, Vega, IV) for all strikes of a given underlying and expiry. This clearly differentiates from sibling tools like get_market_quote or get_oi_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 implies a clear use case (retrieving option Greeks) but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives such as get_market_quote or get_oi_data. No exclusions or alternative tool names are mentioned.

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