get_options_chain

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It discloses a limitation (mutual funds unsupported) and a prerequisite (valid expiration date). However, it omits potential issues like large response sizes, pagination behavior, or the need for special permissions. These omissions keep it at a baseline level.

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 three sentences, each serving a clear purpose: what it does, what it applies to, and how to use it. It is front-loaded with the primary functionality and contains no redundant phrases or filler. This is an exemplary level of 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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, return contents, applicability, prerequisite step, and common use cases, which is quite comprehensive for a read-only tool. It does not mention filtering or sorting capabilities, but those are documented in the schema. The absence of an output schema is partially compensated by listing the returned fields. Overall, it gives enough context for an agent to decide when to use the tool.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add any extra nuance about the parameters themselves; it only reiterates the expiration date requirement that is already in the schema. It adds no value beyond what the structured property descriptions provide.

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 states the tool returns the full option chain for a single ticker and expiration date, including a comprehensive list of contract fields. This is a specific verb+resource that clearly conveys the tool's function. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like get_options_contracts, relying on the word 'full' to imply the difference.

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 clear contextual guidance: it works for stocks/ETFs, not mutual funds, and instructs users to call get_options_expirations first. It also suggests use cases like populating an options chain table or feeding strategy builders. It lacks explicit exclusions or alternative tool recommendations, so it does not achieve a 5.

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