get_options_chain

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose that the chain is 'normalized' and 'delayed,' which is useful, but it doesn't clarify what normalization means, how delayed the data is, or what response shape to expect. It also doesn't disclose auth requirements or rate limits, though as a read operation this is less severe.

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?

One sentence, no filler, and the key qualifiers ('normalized', 'delayed', 'for one expiration') are front-loaded. Every word earns its place.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description is too thin to fully support invocation. It omits how to obtain valid expirations (get_options_expirations), what happens when `expiration` is null, and what the returned chain contains (strikes, calls/puts, etc.).

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 0%, so the description should compensate, but it doesn't define the meaning or format of `symbol` or `expiration`. The parameter names are self-explanatory to some degree, and 'for one expiration' hints at the `expiration` parameter, but no additional semantics such as default behavior when expiration is null or date format are provided.

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 ('Return') and resource ('normalized delayed option chain') with the scope constraint 'for one expiration.' It clearly indicates what the tool does, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools such as get_gamma_exposure or get_options_expirations.

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?

No guidance is given about when to choose this tool over its siblings, and no prerequisites are stated (e.g., obtaining an expiration first). The phrase 'for one expiration' only implies that an expiration may be needed, but conditions and alternatives are left to inference.

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