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. 'Bounded' hints at the per-side limit, but nothing is said about permissions, rate limits, pagination, or whether results are split into calls/puts — significant gaps for a 10-param read tool.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words, though it is arguably too sparse for a tool with ten parameters.

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 ten parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, a one-line description leaves too much unaddressed: the shape of the return (calls vs puts), the prerequisite expiration lookup, and how filters combine are all unstated.

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 every parameter is already documented in the schema; the description adds only the vague qualifier 'filtered, bounded'. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb (Get), resource (option chain), and scope (one expiration date), which implicitly separates it from siblings like get_option_expiration_dates and get_option_summary. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so differentiation is left to inference.

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 phrase 'for one expiration date' implies a required expiration input but never states when to use this over get_option_summary or that get_option_expiration_dates is the natural prerequisite. No alternatives or exclusions are given.

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