option_list_contracts

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 adds 'Real-time' and 'Supports symbol filtering,' but does not disclose potential pagination, rate limits, or the exact structure of returned data. As a read-only list operation, the risk is lower, but transparency remains partial.

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, front-loading the core purpose in the first sentence and adding only essential details (filtering and real-time) in two short follow-ups. No redundant or filler content.

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 and the complexity of options data, the description adequately states the core function but does not clarify what fields are returned for each contract, nor how this tool relates to other option_list_* tools. It is minimally sufficient but leaves room for ambiguity.

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 covers all four parameters with descriptions, including the request_type enum and max_dte. The description's mention of 'symbol filtering' and 'traded or quoted' adds no new semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it neither improves nor detracts from schema clarity.

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 action ('List'), the resource ('contracts'), and the scope ('traded or quoted on a date'). It also mentions symbol filtering, which differentiates it from sibling tools like option_list_symbols, option_list_dates, and option_list_strikes that focus on specific contract attributes.

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 implies usage context: use this tool to fetch contracts for a given date, optionally filtered by symbol. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or explain when to use a more specific sibling tool, such as option_list_expirations or option_list_strikes, instead.

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