get_option_quotes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states what data is returned, but does not mention important aspects such as whether the data is real-time or historical, authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination, or default behaviors for the optional from/to parameters. This is a significant gap for a data-fetching tool.

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, front-loaded sentence that directly states the core function and key outputs. It contains no redundant words, no filler, and is highly scannable for an agent. Every word earns its place.

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 no output schema, no annotations, and four parameters, the description provides only the minimum information: what it returns. It lacks usage guidance, behavioral details, and return structure. While the parameter schema covers inputs well, the missing behavioral and output context leaves enough gaps to warrant a mid-range score.

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 the schema already thoroughly documents all four parameters. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail beyond naming the output fields (Greeks, IV), which aligns with the tool's purpose but does not clarify parameter format, constraints, or relationships. Baseline of 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?

The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and the resource ('options market data') with specific included data fields (Greeks and implied volatility). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_trades, get_orderbooks, and get_ohlcv, which cover other market data types.

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 usage context through its focus on options-specific data, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or when not to use it. There is no reference to sibling tools or alternative data sources.

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