Get Option Contracts

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

With readOnlyHint=true already indicating a read operation, the description adds meaningful context by disclosing a maximum of 10 strikes per request and the performance rationale ('to stay fast'). It also clarifies the output is conids for downstream use, which is not apparent from annotations. No contradictions found.

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 three sentences, front-loading the primary purpose in the first sentence. Each sentence adds value: purpose, integration with get_market_snapshot, and operational limit. No filler or repetition.

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 effectively carries the responsibility of explaining what is returned. It states that the tool returns conids usable with get_market_snapshot, which is the key output semantics. It also mentions the 10-strike limit. While it doesn't detail the response structure or error cases, for a simple lookup tool this is adequate.

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?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the strikes limit and the purpose of the returned conids, but it does not add substantial new meaning beyond the schema. The schema's per-parameter descriptions are sufficient.

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 specifies the tool's purpose: retrieving option contract details (conids) for specific strikes. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_option_chain and get_option_strikes by focusing on user-specified strikes and explicitly linking the output conids to get_market_snapshot usage.

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 gives clear usage context by stating that the returned conids are intended for use with get_market_snapshot for pricing/IV, which implies when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly compare with alternative contract lookup tools or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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