ibkr_option_chain

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return content (chain structure, not Greeks) but does not mention whether it is read-only, any rate limits, or data freshness. While clear, it could add more behavioral context.

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 extremely concise with three sentences. It front-loads the purpose, then clarifies limitations and alternatives. No wasted words.

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?

For a tool with 2 parameters and an output schema (implied), the description adequately covers what the tool returns and its scope. It explicitly states what is not returned, which prevents misuse. The guidance is sufficient for an agent to correctly invoke the 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description mentions 'symbol' but does not add meaning beyond the schema's description. The exchange parameter is not mentioned in the description, but the schema already documents it. Minimal added value.

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 it retrieves available option expirations and strikes for a symbol, specifies the return type (chain structure), and distinguishes itself from ibkr_quote by explicitly stating what it does not provide (Greeks). This effectively differentiates it from sibling tools.

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 provides explicit usage context: use for obtaining chain structure; for Greeks, use ibkr_quote with specific option symbols. This tells the agent when to use this tool and when to use an alternative.

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