get_option_chain

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it declares 'Public read' (no auth, read-only), 'One venue request per expiry' (cost/latency characteristic), that decimals are strings, and that null means an empty side or non-computable IV. It stops short of describing pagination or any rate limits.

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?

A single dense sentence, but it is front-loaded with the resource and scope and every clause carries payload (field list, null semantics, data format, request cost). The em-dash enumeration is heavy but not padded.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must describe return content, and it does: rows per strike, call/put bid-ask-mark-index-forward-IV-greeks-OI-volume, plus the ATM strike. Combined with the schema-covered parameters and stated request cost, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret it.

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 venue, expiry, strikes, and underlying are already fully documented in the schema; baseline is 3. The description restates the expiry and ATM-reference concepts but adds no syntax or format meaning beyond what the schema supplies.

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?

Names a specific verb+resource (option chain) and its scope (one expiry, one venue), then enumerates the row/column shape. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_option_quote (single quote) and get_option_expiries (expiry list).

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 scoping phrase 'for one expiry' implies when this tool applies versus get_option_quote/get_option_expiries, but no alternative is named and no explicit when/when-not guidance is given. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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