Option Chain by Date

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the agent knows it's a safe read operation. The description adds that it returns strike prices and Greeks, which is behavioral context, but does not disclose additional traits like data freshness or pagination. This provides moderate added value beyond annotations.

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 a single concise sentence that is front-loaded with the key action and resource. It is efficient, though it could include slightly more detail without becoming verbose.

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 tool has only two parameters, full schema coverage, and comprehensive annotations, the description covers the essential purpose and return content (strike prices and Greeks). It lacks details about the format or any limitations, but it is sufficient for basic understanding and invocation.

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%, with both parameters (symbol and date) already described in the schema. The description does not add new meaning beyond the schema's examples and format. Thus, it contributes minimal additional value, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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 option chain strike prices and Greeks for a specific expiry date. It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like option_quote or option_chain_expiry_date_list.

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 when strike prices and Greeks are needed for a given expiry, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus related alternatives like option_quote or option_chain_expiry_date_list. This leaves the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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