get_options_chain

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral transparency. It fails to disclose data freshness, rate limits, side effects, or required permissions. The single line adds no behavioral context beyond the tool's existence.

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 sentence that directly states the tool's core purpose. It is front-loaded and contains no extraneous information, earning top marks for conciseness.

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 21 sibling tools and an output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not clarify what 'options chain data' includes, how it differs from related tools (e.g., get_open_interest_analysis, get_vol_surface_metrics), or how the parameters affect results. The lack of context hurts completeness.

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 already provides descriptions for the two parameters (base_coin and min_oi). The tool description adds no additional semantic meaning, but the schema's own descriptions are adequate, yielding a baseline score of 3.

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 'Get current options chain data' clearly states the action (get) and resource (options chain data). It avoids tautology and conveys a specific purpose, but does not differentiate from numerous sibling tools like get_open_interest_analysis or get_vol_surface_metrics.

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 usage guidelines are provided. The description does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it offer context on prerequisites or filters (e.g., base_coin or min_oi usage hints).

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