get_option_greeks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It clearly signals a read-only operation through 'Get', and it discloses the useful result scope ('all strikes of an underlying') and the included greeks. Authentication and data freshness are not mentioned, but these are not critical for a simple query tool.

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?

Two short sentences deliver the functional summary first and parameter examples second. There is no filler, repetition, or redundant restating of the tool name.

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?

Both required parameters are addressed with examples or formats, and the return content is named; the output schema handles the exact response shape. The description is complete enough for a low-complexity read-only tool, though explicit usage boundaries would improve it further.

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 0% per-parameter descriptions, so the description must compensate. It does so by giving a concrete example for 'name' ('NIFTY') and a specific date format for 'expirydate' ('25MAR2024'), clarifying both required parameters. It stops short of enumerating valid underlying names or date edge cases, so it is not a 5.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('option greeks'), enumerates the returned fields (delta, gamma, theta, vega, IV), and narrows the scope to all strikes of an underlying. This clearly differentiates it from market-data siblings like get_market_quote or get_ltp.

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 intended use is implied by the description: call this tool when you need option greeks for a given underlying and expiry. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, leaving usage-boundary guidance implicit.

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