get_screener_option_contracts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation ('Get'), but doesn't specify if it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns real-time or historical data, or details the output format. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. However, it could be more front-loaded with clearer terminology (e.g., defining 'hottest chains') to improve immediate understanding.

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 complexity implied by 'hottest chains screener' and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what data is returned, how it's formatted, or any behavioral traits, making it inadequate for an agent to use the tool effectively without additional context.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate here, but it could have hinted at implicit parameters like filters or sorting—though not required, this keeps it from a perfect score.

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 the tool retrieves 'hottest chains screener (option contracts)', which clarifies it's a retrieval operation focused on option contracts. However, it's vague about what 'hottest chains screener' specifically means—it doesn't specify if this refers to high-volume, high-activity, or trending options, nor does it distinguish from sibling tools like 'get_stock_option_chains' or 'get_option_trades_flow_alerts', leaving ambiguity in its exact function.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'get_stock_option_chains' and 'get_option_trades_flow_alerts', the description lacks any context on use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, offering no help in tool selection.

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