Options by Delta

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. Description adds that it returns 'Strike and option details at the target delta', but does not specify matching behavior (e.g., nearest strike, interpolation) or limitations. Acceptable since it's a read-only lookup.

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?

Approximately 100 words, front-loaded with purpose, followed by when-to-use and a minimal Args list. Every section earns its place; no 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?

For a simple 4-param read-only tool with no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete: it covers purpose, use cases, arguments, and return summary. Minor gaps like delta matching precision are acceptable but not fully addressed.

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%, but description compensates by explaining all 4 params: ticker, target_delta range 0.0–1.0 and default, option_type values, and expiration 'None for nearest'. This adds meaningful usage detail beyond schema.

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?

Clear verb 'Find options at a specific delta'; identifies resource (options) and unique filter (delta). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_options_chain, which likely returns 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?

Explicitly states 'Use this tool when the user asks about...' with concrete examples (30 delta calls, 20 delta puts, strikes by delta). No when-not cases or named alternatives, but usage context is clear.

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