get_option_contracts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only implies a read-only operation via 'Retrieves' but omits important behaviors like pagination, default filters (e.g., active contracts only), or any side effects. This is insufficient for a tool with such a broad filter set.

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, direct sentence with no extraneous content, making it concise and front-loaded. However, its brevity leaves out valuable context, so it loses a point for being too sparse relative to the tool's complexity.

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?

Despite a rich schema and output schema, the description is minimal and does not address the tool's complexity, such as whether it supports pagination, how it relates to get_option_contract, or what kind of data is returned. This makes the description incomplete for an agent to confidently select and invoke the tool.

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 100% parameter description coverage, so the schema itself documents all parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the resource type, earning the baseline score of 3 as per the rubric.

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 tool retrieves option contracts for underlying symbols, using a specific verb and resource. However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like get_option_contract (singular) or get_option_chain, which could be confused for similar functionality.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description merely states what it does, without mentioning suitable scenarios or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name and parameters alone.

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