get_options

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses defaults (nearest 3 expirations, summary detail, text output), but omits error behavior for invalid symbols/expirations, rate limits, and what 'full' detail actually contains.

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?

Three tight sentences, no filler, with the core purpose front-loaded before the default behavior and the format switch. Every clause carries information.

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?

For a 6-param read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential operating defaults and output-format switch. It leaves some gaps (detail=full semantics, failure modes) but nothing that would cause a miscall.

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 100%, so every parameter is already documented with type, enum values, and defaults. The description largely restates those defaults (text format, nearest 3 expirations) rather than adding new semantics, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Returns option chain') plus the scoping behavior ('ATM-anchored strike window'), which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_stock_price or get_stock_history. An agent can identify the tool without opening the schema.

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?

Gives clear context: default returns nearest 3 expirations summary, and the expiration param should be used for a specific chain. It stops short of naming alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, but the operating context is unambiguous.

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