resolve_option_conid

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only gives a usage example, failing to mention error cases, rate limits, or any side effects. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotation support.

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 two sentences: purpose first, then usage example. Every word is necessary; no fluff.

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, no output schema, and no schema descriptions, the description is adequate but incomplete. It lacks explanation of the return value (what is a conid?), and does not cover all parameter details (e.g., strike formats, expiry patterns). The usage example partially compensates.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, but the example shows expected formats (e.g., 'JAN27' for expiry, number for strike, 'C'/'P' for right, optional exchange). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema types, though it only illustrates one format per parameter.

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 tool resolves a specific option contract conid, with a verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like get_option_chain, which returns option chains, not a single conid.

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 provides a usage example with parameter details, implying when to use it (to resolve an option conid), but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives among sibling tools.

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