get_option_chain

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It states only that the tool retrieves an option chain, with no mention of side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or restrictions. The existence of an output schema does not compensate for the lack of behavioral context.

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 concise, using a clear format with Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundant or extraneous text.

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?

The description adequately explains the core function, and the output schema compensates for missing return value details. However, given the presence of many sibling option tools, the description does not provide enough context to differentiate usage or mention any prerequisites (e.g., valid ticker).

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 description adds meaningful context for both parameters: 'ticker' is described as 'The symbol of the security' and 'expiration' as 'The expiration date. If None, uses the nearest expiration.' Since the input schema has 0% description coverage, this additional information is valuable and clarifies usage beyond the schema's minimal type/title fields.

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 'Retrieve the option contract chain for a given ticker and expiration date,' specifying the verb, resource, and required parameters. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_call_options and get_put_options by being the generic chain retrieval.

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 some guidance on expiration default ('If None, uses the nearest expiration'), but does not offer explicit context on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_call_options or get_options_by_moneyness. No when-not-to-use or exclusionary criteria are given.

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