option_snapshot_market_value

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

Without any annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It indicates the value is real-time and derived from the last NBBO quote, but it fails to explain the return format, what happens when multiple contracts match (e.g., all strikes), or whether the value is a midpoint, mark, or other calculation. No output schema exists to compensate.

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, focused sentence with zero filler. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and is appropriately concise for the information it conveys.

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 tool has 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not describe what the output looks like, how the market value is computed, or how filters like strike_range and max_dte affect the results. This leaves significant gaps for an agent attempting to invoke the tool correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents every parameter and its meaning. The description itself adds no extra parameter-level detail beyond the schema. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema carries the burden.

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 identifies the tool's purpose: returning real-time market value for an option contract based on the last NBBO quote. This distinguishes it from sibling snapshot tools like option_snapshot_quote or option_snapshot_trade. However, it lacks an explicit verb such as 'Get' or 'List', making it slightly less direct than ideal.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons with sibling tools like option_snapshot_quote or option_snapshot_market_value for stocks. The user is left to infer usage from the name and schema alone.

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