Option Quote

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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, and the description contradicts none of them. Beyond the annotations, it discloses the 500-symbol cap and, importantly, the Greek normalization semantics: theta is per-day, vega is per 1% IV change, and rho is per 1% risk-free rate change. This prevents an agent from misinterpreting returned values.

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 dense but well-ordered paragraph: purpose and cap first, then symbol sourcing, then output fields, then Greek normalization. Every sentence carries load-bearing information with no filler; the normalization detail is placed at the end where it complements the field list rather than obscuring the invocation guidance.

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?

With no output schema present, the description shoulders the return-value burden and discharges it by listing all 14 per-symbol fields plus Greek normalization semantics. It covers input sourcing, the symbol cap, and the contract-symbol distinction. Only the response container shape and error behavior are left unspecified, which is minor for a read-only quote 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with the symbols parameter already documenting the contract-symbol constraint and the sourcing workflow from option_chain_info_by_date. The description adds value beyond the schema with the 500-symbol limit and a concrete contract format example ('AAPL230317P160000.US'). The _jq parameter is standard boilerplate needing no elaboration.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Get option quotes') plus a concrete invocation boundary (max 500 symbols). It then enumerates the full set of returned fields (last_done, prev_close, Greeks, open_interest, etc.) and mandates option contract symbol format, distinguishing it from stock-quote siblings like quote and from option_volume/option_volume_daily.

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 gives an explicit sourcing workflow: valid symbols come from the symbol field of option_chain_info_by_date contracts, and it warns against passing plain stock symbols — implicitly excluding the quote tool for equity lookups. It does not name sibling alternatives or state explicit when-not-to-use conditions, which keeps it at a 4 rather than a 5.

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