Options board

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

Annotations declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description still adds real context: the 10-day range cap, the 45-day history cap, Rial currency for strike/value/prices, and the full set of returned columns. It does not cover pagination behavior or what happens when the 10-day cap is exceeded, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Three dense sentences, front-loaded with the resource and the two primary modes, then return fields, then the sibling pointer. No filler, and the mode-selection rules come before the column inventory.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description enumerates the returned fields (call/put type, underlying, strike, expiry, OHLC/last, settlement and change, volume, value, open interest), and it discloses both the 10-day and 45-day limits. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this correctly is missing.

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 coverage is already 100%, but the description adds cross-parameter semantics the schema does not state: the 10-day maximum on date_from/date_to, the 45-day history horizon when contract is set, that contract must be a code from an earlier answer, and that an omitted date range means the latest trading day. This is meaningfully beyond the per-field descriptions.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Options on gold, gold coin, gold funds and saffron futures') plus the two modes (one day's board vs. one contract's history), and explicitly names the sibling ime_daily_totals(market="options") for market-wide totals. An agent can distinguish it from ime_board, ime_daily_totals and ime_price_history without opening any schema.

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?

Gives explicit branches: no dates → latest trading day; date_from/date_to (max 10 days) → every day in range; contract → that contract's day-by-day history up to 45 days. It also names the alternative tool and the condition ('market-wide option totals per day') that selects it.

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