robinhood_get_option_chainRetrieve a stock's full option chain for a specific expiration date, with optional call/put filtering for options analysis.
Get the full option chain for a stock on a specific expiration date.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| symbol | Yes | Stock ticker symbol (e.g., "AAPL", "TSLA") | |
| option_type | No | Filter by "call" or "put". Omit for both. | |
| expiration_date | Yes | Expiration date in YYYY-MM-DD format |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only states the action and leaves out any return format, pagination, data fields (e.g., Greeks), or assurance that this is a read-only operation. The agent is left without information about what to expect from the response.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler words. Every element adds meaning, and it is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.
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?
The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description should compensate by explaining what data the 'full option chain' includes or any notable behavior. It briefly covers the core use case but omits details about the response structure or edge cases, leaving a moderate gap for an agent.
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% with clear descriptions for all three parameters (symbol, expiration_date, option_type). The description adds no additional meaning over the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get the full option chain for a stock on a specific expiration date.' It distinguishes this from siblings by emphasizing 'full option chain' and the expiration-date scoping, which clearly separates it from robinhood_get_options_by_expiration_and_strike and robinhood_get_available_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?
The description implies when to use the tool (when you need the complete option chain for a given expiration), but it does not explicitly reference alternatives or state when not to use it. There are no exclusions or alternative routing, so guidance is only implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.