get_option_chain

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action 'Fetch' which implies a read-only operation, but it does not mention any special requirements, limitations, rate limits, or error conditions. The description adds little beyond what the input schema already provides.

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 concise and well-structured: a one-sentence summary followed by a clear list of args. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure makes it easy for an agent to quickly parse the tool's purpose and required inputs.

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 simple parameter set, complete schema descriptions, and the presence of an output schema, the description is largely sufficient for correct selection and invocation. However, it lacks any guidance on usage relative to sibling tools or any caveats about expiration date validity, preventing a perfect score.

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 the schema already fully documents all parameters. The description repeats the parameter meanings without adding extra context such as examples for the date format or clarifying option_type values. It meets the baseline for schema-heavy coverage but does not enhance understanding beyond the schema.

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 starts with a specific verb 'Fetch' and clearly identifies the resource (option chain) with the key parameters (ticker, expiration date, option type). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_option_expiration_dates, which deal with expiration dates rather than the chain itself.

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 description implies usage context (when you need an option chain for a specific ticker and expiration) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites such as first fetching expiration dates via get_option_expiration_dates. This leaves the agent to infer usage from the purpose.

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