nse_options_chain

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It details what the tool returns (call/put options with specific fields) but omits behavioral traits like data freshness, rate limits, or read-only nature. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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 compact and well-organized, with a brief intro, bullet-style field list, args section, and examples. Every sentence adds value; no redundancy.

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?

For a single-parameter tool with an output schema, the description sufficiently explains inputs, outputs, and usage via examples. It doesn't need to detail return values since output schema exists. Complete for its simplicity.

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 only parameter (symbol) has 0% schema description coverage, but the description provides examples of valid values (e.g., RELIANCE, NIFTY) and clarifies it covers stocks and indices. This adds meaning beyond the schema's raw type string.

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 it retrieves options chain data for NSE stocks or indices, listing specific fields like strike price, premium, volume, OI, IV, and PCR. Examples with common symbols (RELIANCE, NIFTY) reinforce the purpose. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on quotes, historical data, or other analytics.

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 implicitly indicates use for options chain data but lacks explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives or when not to use. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated, though the specific purpose makes context clear.

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