option_chain

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely says 'Get option chain data' without describing return format, pagination, error handling, or whether data includes strikes, bid/ask, etc. This adds little beyond the tool name and offers no behavioral context.

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 exceptionally concise: one sentence plus an Args list. Every word earns its place, and the format is front-loaded with the core purpose.

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?

The tool has only two simple parameters and no output schema, so minimal detail could suffice. However, the description omits any mention of return fields and does not differentiate among many option-related siblings (e.g., ib_option_chain, option_greeks). This leaves the agent with incomplete context for selecting and invoking the tool confidently.

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%, but the description compensates with an Args section: symbol: Ticker symbol and expiry: Expiration date (YYYY-MM-DD). This adds meaning beyond the schema titles, particularly the date format for expiry. Both parameters are covered.

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's function: 'Get option chain data (calls and puts) for a specific expiration.' This uses a specific verb ('Get'), names the resource ('option chain data'), and scopes it to calls/puts and a specific expiration. It distinguishes from sibling tools like option_expiries (which likely fetches expiration dates) and option_greeks.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or when to prefer other siblings like ib_option_chain or spread tools. For an AI agent, this lack of differentiation makes selection ambiguous.

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