get_options_chain

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Lists output fields but fails to disclose behavioral traits like rate limits, real-time vs delayed data, potential size of response, or any side effects. Lacks depth for a read operation.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with core purpose and data fields. Second sentence adds context without redundancy. No wasted words; highly efficient.

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?

Given no output schema, description adequately lists returned fields (strikes, premiums, etc.). Could mention potential size or pagination, but covers essential elements for agent to select tool. Sibling tools are analytical, so this tool's role is clear.

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 100% with both parameters described. Description does not add extra meaning beyond schema: it omits details on expirationDate format or default behavior. Baseline 3 as schema already covers parameters.

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 uses specific verb 'Get' and resource 'options chain data', listing exact fields (calls/puts, strikes, premiums, volume, open interest, implied volatility). Clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like get_implied_volatility or calculate_greeks which focus on derived metrics.

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?

States 'Useful for analyzing available options contracts and their prices', implying use for raw data retrieval. However, lacks explicit guidance on when to use versus siblings (e.g., for further calculations) and no when-not-to-use conditions or prerequisites.

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