ib_option_expiries

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It indicates a read-only operation ('List') and discloses the external dependency (TWS/IB Gateway). However, it doesn't explain connection failure behavior, rate limits, or return format, leaving some transparency gaps.

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 concise and well-structured: a one-line purpose, a prerequisite note, and a simple Args list. Every sentence adds value, and the format is easily scannable.

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 simple listing tool, the description covers the core aspects: what, prerequisite, and parameters. It lacks an explicit description of the return value or error handling, but given the tool's simplicity and the presence of sibling tools for related data, this is reasonably 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 compensates by explaining symbol as ticker and port with specific values for live/paper. This adds meaning beyond the schema's bare property definitions, though it could also clarify the port default more explicitly.

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 clearly states the tool lists available option expiration dates from Interactive Brokers, using a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from the sibling 'option_expiries' tool, implying a dedicated IB integration.

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 clear context by requiring TWS or IB Gateway running locally and explains the port distinction for live/paper trading. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, but the IB-specific context is sufficient for basic usage guidance.

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