get_options_chain

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

Without annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It explains the output format (paired contracts grouped by strike) and defaults for optional params. However, it does not mention read-only nature, authorization needs, or performance characteristics. Adequate but not rich.

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 concise: two short paragraphs and a bulleted section. Every sentence adds value, and the most important information (what it returns) is front-loaded.

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 an output schema and moderate complexity, the description adequately covers purpose, defaults, and output format. It could mention error handling or limitations, but overall it is complete for practical use.

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% with descriptions, but the tool description adds value by explaining the grouping by strike and the resolution logic for expiration and root (e.g., 'automatically resolves to the default options root'). This adds context beyond schema.

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 grouped call/put options chain for a stock/index, sorted by strike. This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_bonds or get_earnings_calendar.

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 explains default behavior for expiration and root, helping the agent understand when to omit them. It implicitly guides usage (e.g., to get options data) but doesn't explicitly compare to alternatives or state when not to use.

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