get_options

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It clearly discloses two distinct behaviors (listing expirations vs. returning the option chain) and the strict symbol format requirement, including a prohibition on ISIN/WKN/company names. It stops short of explicitly stating read-only behavior or error handling, but the provided context is substantial.

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 compact three-sentence paragraph, front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence adds a necessary usage or constraint detail, with no filler or redundancy.

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's modest complexity (two parameters, one required), the high schema coverage, and the presence of an output schema, the description fully covers what an agent needs to invoke it correctly: symbol resolution, expiration behavior, and the two invocation modes. No meaningful gaps remain.

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% for both parameters, and the description largely repeats the schema's own parameter documentation (e.g., 'YYYY-MM-DD', 'from that list', 'resolve via search'). It adds no new semantic details beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline but does not elevate it.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Get the option chain for a Yahoo symbol.' It further specifies that it returns 'calls and puts' with a given expiration, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_quote, get_history, and get_estimates.

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 gives explicit when-to-use instructions: call without expiration to list available dates, then call with expiration for the actual chain. It also directs users to resolve ISIN/WKN/company names via the 'search' tool first, naming an alternative tool for a prerequisite step.

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