opcoes_ativo

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only operation (though implied), whether there are limits on the option chain returned, whether expired options are included, or how much data is returned. For a quote/chain retrieval tool, this is a notable 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 a single efficient sentence with zero waste. It's appropriately compact for a straightforward retrieval tool.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and only a one-line description, this is under-specified. The description doesn't explain what data the option chain contains (strikes, expirations, Greeks, volume), nor the relationship to the tipo filtering. For a tool returning a complex data structure (option chains), more context is warranted.

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 coverage is 100%, and the description mentions 'calls e puts' which maps to the tipo parameter enum. However, the description doesn't explain the default behavior (todas) or how the tipo filter affects results. The ticker examples (PETR4, VALE3) are in the schema already, so the description adds minimal value beyond the schema.

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 says 'Gets option chain of an asset (calls and puts)' with a clear verb+resource, but it doesn't distinguish it from siblings like cotacao_ativo or historico_ativo adequately. Options are a distinct instrument type, so it does have some differentiation, but the description is terse and doesn't specify what 'cadeia' includes (expiration dates, strikes, prices).

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 when-to-use guidance is provided. The description doesn't mention when this tool is appropriate over cotacao_ativo (spot price) or fundamentus_ativo (fundamentals), nor does it state any prerequisites like a specific market context. No exclusions or alternatives are named.

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