simulate_option_chain

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that the server fetches the current chain for the ticker, simulates at the user-specified price/DTE/IV shift, and returns re-priced Greeks. It also notes that sim_dte=0 means at expiry and the IV adjustment range. However, it does not mention model limitations (e.g., Black-Scholes assumptions) or error handling, which would make it more transparent.

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 and front-loaded: a one-sentence summary, a clarifying 'what-if' explanation, bulleted use cases, then Args and Returns sections. Every sentence serves a purpose, and the formatting makes it easy to scan. The slight redundancy between the first two sentences is minor and does not detract from overall efficiency.

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 simulation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and five parameters, the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, usage scenarios, parameter semantics, and return value ('the re-priced chain with Greeks'). It does not address edge cases like invalid tickers, but that is not necessary for correct tool selection and invocation. The description is self-sufficient.

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 fully—and it does. The Args section explains each parameter: ticker ('server fetches the current chain'), sim_price ('Hypothetical stock price'), sim_dte ('Days to expiration... 0 = at expiry'), iv_adjustment ('IV shift in percent, -50 to +50'), and expiration ('YYYY-MM-DD, default: nearest'). This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema titles.

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, specific statement: 'Re-price an options chain at a hypothetical stock price, DTE, and IV shift.' This identifies the verb (re-price), the resource (options chain), and the key variables. The Black-Scholes 'what-if' framing further distinguishes it from the many get_* sibling tools that simply fetch current or historical data.

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 provides a bulleted list of concrete when-to-use scenarios: 'What an option would be worth if the stock moves,' 'How theta decay reshapes the chain over time,' and 'IV crush / IV spike what-ifs.' This gives clear context for when to select this tool over siblings, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it.

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