get_options_chain

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses the output fields (bid/ask, mark, IV, greeks, OI) and the critical constraint that USDC requires an underlying. For a read-only 'get' tool, this is adequate transparency; rate limits or side effects would be nice but aren't essential here.

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 two sentencees plus an IMPORTANT note, with the primary purpose front-loaded. Every sentence contributes; there is no fluff or repetition.

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 tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the return content, the default strike range, and the one real edge case (USDC needs underlying). It omits only minor details like strike ordering or pagination, which aren't critical for correct invocation.

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 100% and all parameters already have descriptive text, including enums and the USDC requirement. The description adds marginal value by clarifying atm_range as 'ATM ± 10' and re-emphasizing the underlying requirement, but the schema already carries the semantic load.

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?

Description states a specific verb ('Get'), resource ('options chain'), and scope ('currency + expiry'), then enumerates the return payload (strikes with bid/ask, mark, IV, greeks, OI). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_instruments or get_volatility_surface, which return different data shapes.

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 gives clear invocation context: it fetches an options chain by currency and expiry. It also provides explicit param-level guidance with the IMPORTANT note to always set 'underlying' for USDC and to use 'atm_range' to limit strikes. It doesn't name alternative tools, but the usage context is unambiguous.

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