get_option_chain

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions the data retrieval nature implicitly and describes format behavior. It lacks explicit statements about read-only status, error handling for invalid symbols, or any side effects. More transparency would be beneficial.

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: two short sentences that convey the core purpose and key parameter guidance. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or unnecessary information.

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's simplicity (two parameters, no output schema), the description covers the essential aspects. It could mention the structure of the returned data or that it's a read-only operation, but the lack of such details does not significantly impair an agent's ability to use the tool correctly.

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?

The schema covers symbol with an example, but format lacks description. The description adds value by explaining the effect of each format option ('grouped by date' vs 'flat list'), which compensates for the missing schema description. With 50% schema coverage, the description meaningfully enriches parameter understanding.

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 action ('Get') and the resource ('option chain for an underlying symbol'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. Among sibling tools focused on accounts, orders, and watchlists, this tool is distinct and appropriately named.

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 explains the two format options and their effects ('nested' for grouping by date, 'compact' for flat list), guiding usage. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives, though no obvious alternatives exist among siblings.

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