Option snapshots

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: large results are stored rather than returned, yielding a result_id to redeem via results_query, plus the greeks methodology (Alpaca Black-Scholes, per share) and IV as an annualised fraction.

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?

Two dense sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns and ending with the result-handling caveat. Every clause carries information; no filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the full burden and delivers: it enumerates the returned fields and the truncation/result_id mechanism. Combined with the annotation safety profile, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 both occ_symbols (with an example) and page_token are already documented in the schema. The description's note that expiration, strike and type are parsed from the OCC symbol adds a little interpretive value but no syntax beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 applies.

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 resource and scope: 'Latest state per option contract' with the exact fields returned (greeks, IV, last trade, best bid/ask, today's bar, previous close). This clearly separates it from siblings like options_chain, options_bars and options_latest_quotes, which cover different slices of option data.

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 rather than stated: the agent can infer this is the snapshot/point-in-time tool, and the description routes to results_query when results are large. However, it never says explicitly when to prefer this over options_chain or options_latest_quotes, nor any exclusions.

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