option_contract

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It indicates 'parse and quote' (suggesting a read-only operation), but does not disclose what 'parse' entails (e.g., symbol validation), whether the quote is real-time or delayed, any rate limits, or possible errors. This lack of detail leaves significant ambiguity for an agent.

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 concise sentence: 'Parse and quote one OCC option contract.' It front-loads the action and object with no wasted words, making it highly efficient.

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 simple (one parameter, no nesting) and an output schema exists, so return value details are not required. However, the description never clarifies usage context or behavioral details, and the absence of annotations makes this a gap. It is minimally viable but not complete for an agent to confidently invoke it without further assumptions.

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 one parameter 'symbol' with no description (0% coverage). The description adds the crucial context that the symbol must be an OCC option contract, implying a specific format (e.g., AAPL230616C00150000). However, it does not provide examples or further syntax details, so it partially compensates for the schema gap but not fully.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Parse and quote one OCC option contract.' It specifies the object (an OCC option contract) and the action (parse and quote), and the inclusion of 'one' distinguishes it from the sibling tool option_chain, which handles multiple contracts.

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 for obtaining a quote for a single OCC option contract, as opposed to option_chain for multiple contracts. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or any exclusions, so guidance is only implied, not explicit.

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