Max Pain

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

The readOnlyHint: true annotation is appropriately reflected, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: it explains the concept of max pain and notes that the return includes 'the loss profile by strike.' While it doesn't detail every edge case, it doesn't need to for a read-only lookup tool. It goes beyond the annotation by specifying the return structure.

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 concise and well-structured: a one-sentence summary, a brief explanatory definition, a bulleted usage list, and a compact Args/Returns section. Every sentence adds value, and the structure front-loads the most critical information.

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?

For a simple two-parameter read-only tool, the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, usage context, parameters, and return value. It omits potential details like response format or error conditions, but these are not critical given the tool's simplicity and the presence of clear descriptions.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by documenting each parameter: 'ticker: Stock symbol' and 'expiration: Expiration date YYYY-MM-DD (default: nearest)'. It provides format, requiredness, and default behavior, making the schema immediately usable.

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 opens with a clear, specific statement: 'Get the max pain strike for a ticker.' It uses a precise verb-noun structure and uniquely identifies the tool's function among many options-related siblings like get_options_chain and get_gex. The purpose is immediately understandable and distinct.

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 explicitly lists 'Use this tool when the user asks about:' followed by three clear scenarios (max pain level, pinning at expiration, option-writer positioning). This gives the agent direct, actionable guidance on when to invoke this tool over alternatives.

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