get_option_chain

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It explicitly states 'read-only' and adds nuance about Greeks being 'where available', which informs expectations about data completeness. This is useful behavioral context beyond a generic getter, though it lacks details on response format or pagination.

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 well-formed sentence that is front-loaded with the core action and resource. It is concise, with no unnecessary words, and effectively communicates the essential purpose.

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 tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description is too sparse to support correct invocation. It does not clarify parameter defaults, allowed contract types, or the structure of the returned chain, leaving significant gaps for an agent to interpret.

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 input schema has 3 parameters with zero description coverage, and the description does not explain the meaning or semantics of 'symbol', 'strike_count', or 'contract_type'. The description adds no parameter-level value, leaving the agent to guess the expected values and formats.

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 action 'Get' and the resource 'option chain', and the mention of 'Schwab-provided Greeks' distinguishes it from sibling quote/price tools. The scope is unambiguous and directly identifies the tool's purpose.

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 use for retrieving option chain data but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_quotes or get_price_history. There is no mention of exclusions or alternative tools, leaving usage context only implicit.

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