option_snapshot_trade

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that it returns the real-time last trade, but it does not disclose that multiple contracts may be returned when strike='*' or right='both', how 'real-time' is defined, or whether there are any data delays. The behavior is under-specified even for a read-only tool.

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, direct sentence without unnecessary words, making it concise and front-loaded. While it omits useful context, it does not waste any space. The brevity is a positive trait even though the content is thin.

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's complexity (6 parameters, no output schema, no annotations) and the crowded sibling namespace, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the snapshot concept, how filters affect the result set, or why to choose this tool over option_at_time_trade or option_history_trade. The description is far too minimal to guide an agent effectively.

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 schema already describes all six parameters with 100% coverage, so the description does not need to add parameter details. However, the description adds no extra meaning about how parameters interact (e.g., that filters can be combined). Baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 resource and action: 'Real-time last trade for an option contract.' It is specific enough to distinguish from quote/ohlc/open_interest snapshot tools, but it does not explicitly differentiate from option_at_time_trade or option_history_trade. The use of 'real-time' helps contrast with historical endpoints, but the differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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 its siblings. It does not mention any filters, limitations, or alternative tools for different scenarios (e.g., option_snapshot_quote for quotes, option_history_trade for historical data). Usage context is completely absent.

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