option_chain

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that data is live NSE data and includes LTP/OI/IV around ATM, but it does not mention authentication, rate limits, whether data is delayed, error behavior for invalid expiries, or the response shape.

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 short and front-loaded: the core behavior appears first, followed by compact parameter notes. Every sentence adds useful information without repetition.

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 3-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description gives enough to invoke it and identifies the returned metrics (LTP/OI/IV). It still lacks a fuller picture of the response structure and operational constraints such as rate limits or error handling.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: symbol examples are provided, expiry is described as a filter with format and default behavior, and atm_band is explained as the number of strikes either side of the money. Minor gaps remain, such as not restating the atm_band default of 5.

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 states a specific resource and scope: a live NSE option chain around ATM for one underlying, including LTP/OI/IV. It is clear what the tool returns, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings such as max_pain or greeks.

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?

Usage is implied by the data type: use this when you need an option chain around ATM. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no comparison to sibling tools like max_pain or greeks.

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