get_options_chain

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses default behavior (nearest expiration, 20 strikes each side) and the interaction between expiration and num_expirations. It also includes a performance caution. It doesn't mention data source, delays, or error cases, but the key behaviors are well covered.

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 a clear intro, bulleted use cases, an Args section, and a Returns section. It is concise and scannable. Minor redundancy exists between the first sentence and the Returns section, but it doesn't detract significantly.

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?

Given 4 parameters, no output schema, and many sibling tools, the description covers purpose, usage, defaults, and parameters. The return value is described only as 'Options chain data with calls, puts, and metadata,' which is vague but sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool. More detail on the return structure would make it fully complete.

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 fully compensates. The Args section thoroughly explains each parameter: ticker with examples, expiration format and override behavior, num_expirations range, and strikes_around semantics including 0 for full chain. This adds significant meaning beyond the 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?

The description opens with a clear statement of purpose: 'Get the options chain for a ticker.' It then explicitly lists what is returned (calls and puts with Greeks, IV, volume, open interest per strike), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_options_by_delta or get_historical_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 cases: 'Use this tool when the user asks about: options prices for a stock, call or put prices at specific strikes, volume and open interest data, full options chain information.' It also advises to widen strikes only when necessary. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives to use for other scenarios, so it lacks full exclusionary guidance.

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