get_options

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return limit (1000 contracts) and filtering options. However, it does not explicitly state idempotency/read-only nature, though it is implied. Nearly complete.

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 well-structured, front-loading purpose, then usage, filtering, limits, and examples. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 complexity of options data and lack of output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: return data, filtering, limits, and example queries. It is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke 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?

The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining how filtering parameters (strike range, expiration window, option type) work together. While the schema has detailed descriptions for each parameter, the description provides usage context, compensating for the 0% reported coverage (likely a measurement issue).

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 retrieves options chain data, listing specific data points (strike prices, Greeks, etc.) and filtering capabilities. It uses specific verbs and distinguishes this tool from siblings by focusing exclusively on options.

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?

Explicitly tells when to use: 'Use this when asked about options strategies...' and provides concrete examples. Although it doesn't directly contrast with siblings, the sibling list contains no other options tool, and the description covers key usage scenarios.

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