Options Chain

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds useful context beyond that: default expiration selection, default 20-strike width, and the ability to override with expiration or full chain. It does not disclose potential data delays or rate limits, but it gives enough behavioral transparency for tool selection.

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 brief purpose, return summary, usage triggers, and a clean Args section. Every section helps the agent decide and invoke correctly; there is no filler or redundant elaboration.

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 there is no output schema, the description adequately describes the return content (calls, puts, Greeks, IV, volume, open interest, metadata) and documents defaults, overrides, and constraints. This is sufficient for effective tool selection and invocation without additional structured metadata.

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%, yet the description fully compensates by documenting every parameter: ticker with examples, expiration format and override behavior, num_expirations range, and strikes_around semantics including 0 for full chain. This is strong added value beyond the bare 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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Get the options chain for a ticker') and clearly enumerates the returned content: calls, puts, Greeks, IV, volume, and open interest per strike. This 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?

The description explicitly lists user intents that should trigger this tool: options prices, call/put prices, volume/open interest, and full chain information. It also advises to use the default narrow strike range unless the analysis genuinely needs a wider one, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion cases.

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