get_options_chain_v2

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds the useful detail that Greeks are theoretical European Black-Scholes, but it does not explain defaults for expiration_date, whether the chain covers all expirations when null, what 'option chain' includes (calls/puts/strikes), or any limitations or side effects. This falls short of transparent behavioral disclosure.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that states the primary action and the optional enhancement with zero filler. Every word earns its place; it is concise without losing meaning.

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 3-parameter tool with no annotations and only 33% schema coverage, the description is too thin. It does not clarify the meaning of expiration_date, the default behavior when it is null, the scope of the returned chain, or any caller expectations. The output schema exists, but key input semantics and usage context are 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 description coverage is only 33% — only the symbol parameter is described. The description helps clarify include_greeks by tying it to theoretical European Black-Scholes Greeks, but expiration_date receives no semantic explanation beyond the schema's type/format. With low schema coverage, the description should compensate more fully.

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 uses a specific verb and resource — "Get an option chain" — and clearly distinguishes this tool from its siblings, which cover stock and historical data. The optional Greeks clause adds further precision without ambiguity.

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?

Usage context is implied by the domain: use this tool when you need option chain data, versus stock data or historical data for the siblings. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of when to set include_greeks versus leave it false, and no stated exclusions or alternatives.

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