reference_option_contractRetrieve one option contract by OCC symbol with its deliverables for contract-level lookup and analysis.
One option contract by OCC symbol, with its deliverables.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| occ_symbol | Yes | OCC option symbol, e.g. AAPL250117C00150000. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds only the phrase 'with its deliverables' as extra content context; it does not disclose rate limits, error behavior, or freshness. With annotations carrying the burden, a 3 is appropriate.
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, front-loaded sentence fragment with zero filler. It is efficient, though its brevity borders on under-specification for routing against the plural sibling.
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 simple read-only lookup with no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description is close to adequate. The one meaningful gap is failing to differentiate from reference_option_contracts, which an agent could confuse with this tool.
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?
There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, including an example OCC symbol, so the schema does all the work. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond it, matching the baseline 3 for fully documented params.
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 (one option contract), a lookup key (OCC symbol), and scope (singular), which distinguishes it from list-style tools. However, it never names or contrasts with the obvious sibling reference_option_contracts (plural), leaving the single-vs-list distinction implicit.
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?
There is no explicit when-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives. The singular 'One option contract' weakly implies a single-symbol lookup versus the plural sibling, but no exclusion or condition is stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.