get_option_expiries

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does so reasonably: it declares the tool is a public read requiring no API key, and specifies sort order ('soonest first') plus the fields returned per expiry. It stops short of pagination or rate-limit behavior, keeping it below a 5.

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 tight sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, then the return contents and the read-only note. No redundant or filler clauses.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by naming the returned fields and their order. Combined with full schema coverage and an auth note, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only sibling routing guidance is missing.

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% for both parameters (venue, underlying), so the schema already does the documentation work. The description only lightly reinforces that the venue is Derive; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (list active option expiries) scoped to an underlying on a named venue (Derive), and enumerates the returned per-expiry fields. An agent can distinguish this from siblings like get_option_chain or get_option_quote without opening a schema.

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?

Usage is implied by the listing/scoping language and the note that it is a public read, but the description never states when to choose this over get_option_chain or get_option_quote, nor any exclusion conditions. Adequate but leaves routing to inference.

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