get_options_by_delta

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return shape ('Strike and option details at the target delta') and parameter defaults, but does not mention behavior when no exact delta match exists or how strikes are chosen among close matches.

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 well-structured with an intro, explicit usage examples, an Args block, and a Returns line. Every sentence contributes meaningful information without redundancy or fluff.

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?

Covers the essential aspects for a simple lookup tool: parameters, defaults, and return type. Missing details about exact-match precision or whether multiple strikes are returned, but these are not critical for basic delta-based searches.

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 Args section fully compensates by explaining ticker, target_delta (with range and default), option_type ('call' or 'put'), and expiration (None for nearest). This adds essential meaning beyond bare property names.

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 'Find options at a specific delta' with concrete examples and use-case bullets. It distinguishes from siblings like get_options_chain by focusing on delta-based selection rather than the full chain.

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?

Provides explicit 'Use this tool when' bullets listing common scenarios (e.g., '30 delta calls or 20 delta puts'). While it doesn't name alternatives or give when-not-to-use, the context is clear enough for an agent to select this tool for delta-specific queries.

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