get_max_pain

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It clarifies the return value ('Max pain strike with the loss profile by strike') and the default expiration ('default: nearest'), but it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or disclose any limitations, errors, or side effects. The concept explanation is useful context, but the behavioral disclosure is incomplete.

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 efficiently structured: one-line purpose, a brief conceptual explanation, a bulleted use-case list, and compact Args/Returns sections. All information is relevant and no words are wasted.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema and annotations, the description covers purpose, usage, parameters, and the shape of the return value. For a tool with only two simple parameters, this is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke it correctly. Minor gaps like error behavior or detailed loss-profile structure prevent a 5.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. The 'Args' section explains ticker as 'Stock symbol' and expiration with format 'YYYY-MM-DD' and default 'nearest', adding meaning beyond the bare schema. It's concise and covers both parameters, though it could elaborate on the meaning of 'nearest' or the loss profile.

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 'Get the max pain strike for a ticker' – a clear verb and resource. It then defines max pain in plain terms, distinguishing this from sibling tools like get_gex or get_charm_exposure by explaining the specific options-positioning concept it addresses.

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 cases: 'Max pain level', 'Where the stock might pin at expiration', 'Option-writer positioning'. This is clear when-to-use guidance, but it does not mention when to avoid this tool or point to alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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