find-options-chain

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and discloses key behaviors: data provider query, filtering by volume/bid/ask >0.10, strike percentage, and behavior when nothing found. This is good transparency for a query 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?

Two sentences efficiently convey purpose, filtering criteria, and an edge case. No extraneous information; every sentence 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 5 parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, filters, and result emptiness. It lacks mention of return format but is sufficiently complete for a query tool. Minor gap: does not describe pagination or limits.

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 coverage is 100%, but the description adds value by explaining filtering logic (volume/bid/ask thresholds, strike percentage) that is not in parameter descriptions. This helps the agent understand how parameters influence results.

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 explicitly states the tool queries for options chain of a symbol on a specific expiration date, and lists key filtering criteria. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like historical-prices and get-quote which are for different data.

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 for retrieving filtered options data but does not explicitly compare to siblings or provide when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance. It does mention an edge case (empty result) and suggests checking validity, which is helpful but not full guidance.

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