buy_option

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses key behaviors (market vs limit, x100 multiplier, expiry format) but omits execution risk, idempotency, and what happens after order submission.

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 three concise sentences with no wasted words. Every sentence adds value: what it does, parameter formats, order type, and prerequisite guidance.

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 is a financial action with 9 params and no annotations. While it covers core usage and has an output schema, missing param explanations and lack of behavioral depth make it only partially complete.

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 must compensate. It explains expiry, kind, contracts, limit, and mentions strike via option_chain, but leaves account, agent, and idempotency_key unexplained.

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 starts with 'Buy an option,' a clear verb+resource statement. It distinguishes itself from siblings like sell_option and adds necessary context about order types and contract multiplier.

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?

It explains the market/limit order behavior and explicitly directs users to option_chain for valid expiries/strikes. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the context is sufficient for most scenarios.

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