Option Chain by Date

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds value by detailing the return format (strikePrices with call/put fields), which gives the agent a clear picture of what to expect beyond the 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 sentence that front-loads the purpose and immediately follows with the return structure. Every part is essential; there is no fluff. It is optimally concise for its complexity.

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?

The tool is simple with only two parameters fully described in the schema, no output schema, but the description provides the return structure. Given the low complexity and annotations, the description is complete enough for an agent to use correctly. It could benefit from clarifying that the date must be an expiration date (not any date), but the schema's date description implies this.

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 fully documents both parameters (symbol and date). The description does not add new parameter information but indirectly provides context by showing the return structure, which helps understand how parameters map to output. This meets the baseline for fully covered schemas.

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's action: 'Get option chain for an expiry date.' It includes the return structure, specifying strikePrices with call/put fields. This is specific and distinguishes it from siblings like option_chain_expiry_date_list (which lists expiry dates) and option_quote (for a single option).

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 explicitly says 'for an expiry date,' which implies the appropriate context. While it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or contrast with siblings, the naming and context make it clear that this tool is for obtaining the chain for a specific date, not for listing dates or quoting individual options.

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