get_options_contracts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return contents (pricing, Greeks, etc.), applicable underlying types (stocks/ETFs, not mutual funds), and implies a read-only operation via 'Returns a snapshot.' It could add detail on error behavior, but it is reasonably transparent.

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 well-structured: first sentence states the core function and return fields, second sentence explains scope and exclusions, third sentence gives usage guidance. Every sentence is informative and there is no fluff.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description enumerates the primary return fields and clearly scopes the tool to single contracts. It could mention the exact structure of the response, but for a single-parameter tool, it is sufficiently complete.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add additional meaning to contract_name beyond what the schema already provides (full identifier and example). Thus, no extra value is contributed.

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 tool returns a single option contract snapshot with a specific list of data fields. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_options_chain by mentioning 'without reloading the full chain.'

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?

It explicitly provides use cases: 'Use for contract detail panels, deep-link flows, or refreshing a single contract without reloading the full chain.' It also states a limitation: mutual funds are not supported, which helps an agent decide when not to use it.

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