get_option_chain

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It adds useful context about the optional api_key fallback to an environment variable, and the 'complete' matrix implies read-only data retrieval. However, it does not mention potential errors, rate limits, or other behavioral constraints, so it is only partially transparent.

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 concise and well-structured: a single clear sentence stating the tool's purpose followed by a neatly formatted Args block. Every sentence contributes value with no redundancy or filler.

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 low complexity, an output schema, and only two parameters, the description covers the core requirements: purpose, parameters, and authentication. It does not discuss edge cases or explicit differences from siblings, but it is sufficiently complete for the tool's scope.

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 has no property descriptions (0% coverage), but the description's Args section fully explains both parameters with types, purpose, and an example for symbol, plus the api_key behavior. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of semantic detail.

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 tool fetches a complete option chain matrix and lists key included elements (PCR, ATM strike, CE/PE quotes, volume, Greeks), making it specific and easily distinguishable from sibling tools like get_market_context or get_historical_data.

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 implies usage when option chain data is needed and provides example symbols, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or include any exclusions. This is adequate but lacks clear guidance on tool selection.

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