realtime_options

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers no behavioral details. It does not disclose if this is a read-only operation, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what the output format might be, making it inadequate for a tool with parameters.

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 extremely concise with a single phrase, 'Fetch realtime options', which is front-loaded and wastes no words. However, this brevity contributes to underspecification rather than clarity.

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 complexity of a 3-parameter tool with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It lacks essential details on purpose, usage, behavior, and parameters, failing to provide a minimal viable understanding.

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%, and the description adds no information about the parameters (symbol, datatype, contract). It does not explain what 'symbol' represents, what 'datatype' options are, or how 'contract' is used, failing to compensate for the schema gap.

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 'Fetch realtime options' restates the tool name 'realtime_options' with minimal elaboration, making it tautological. It lacks specificity about what 'options' refers to (e.g., financial options data) or what 'realtime' entails, failing to distinguish it from sibling tools like 'historical_options' or 'stock_quote'.

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. It does not mention sibling tools like 'historical_options' for non-realtime data or 'realtime_bulk_quotes' for bulk operations, leaving the agent without context for selection.

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