options_get_last_trade

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It only states the basic action and does not disclose what the return format looks like, what happens if no trade exists, whether the ticker must be in a specific option OCC format, or any rate limits. This lack of detail leaves significant behavioral ambiguity.

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, straightforward sentence that is front-loaded and free of wasted words. It earns a high score for conciseness, though the brevity contributes to the lack of substantive 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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (one parameter, no annotations, no output schema), the description should at least specify the expected ticker format, the nature of the returned trade data, and any preconditions. It offers none of this, leaving the agent without sufficient context to invoke the tool reliably.

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 schema has one required parameter 'ticker' with no description, and the description provides zero additional meaning. It does not explain what a valid option contract ticker looks like (e.g., OCC symbol format) or give an example. Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it completely fails to do so.

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 operation ('Get') and the resource ('the most recent trade for an option contract'), which is specific and distinct from sibling tools like options_get_trades (plural) or options_get_quotes. However, it does not explicitly mention that the input is a single option's ticker symbol or differentiate it from stocks_get_last_trade/crypto_get_last_trade, so slightly more clarity could be added.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as options_get_snapshot (which may include last trade data) or options_get_trades (for historical trades). There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or examples of when this is the preferred choice.

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