get_options_by_moneyness

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states that the tool retrieves data and returns a dict, but it does not mention any potential side effects, required authentication, rate limits, or error handling. This lack of transparency is a significant gap.

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 and well-structured, with a clear one-line purpose statement followed by a neatly formatted Args section and a brief Returns note. Every sentence provides essential information, and there is no wasted 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?

Given the absence of an output schema, the description should elaborate on the return value. It only says 'Options data filtered by moneyness' without detailing the structure or fields. Additionally, while parameters are listed, the moneyness_range parameter lacks precise explanation, and no examples are provided. The description is insufficient for a tool with three parameters and no annotations.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by listing each parameter and providing brief explanations. It clarifies that expiration_date can be None (using nearest expiration) and moneyness_range defaults to 0.1. However, the meaning of 'moneyness_range' is not fully explained, leaving some ambiguity.

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 retrieves options filtered by moneyness for a given ticker and expiration date. The verb 'retrieve' and the specific resource 'options filtered by moneyness' clearly define its function. Among siblings like get_option_chain and get_options_skew, this tool's focus on moneyness stands out.

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 clear context for when to use the tool (retrieving options by moneyness), but it does not offer any guidance on when not to use it or how it compares to alternatives like get_call_options or get_put_options. No exclusions or alternative suggestions are given.

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