Get Option Strikes

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already establishes that this is a safe read operation, so the description does not need to repeat that. However, the description adds no extra behavioral context beyond the annotation and the schema (e.g., no mention of response format, pagination, or exchange filter behavior), resulting in a neutral score.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and scope. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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 the low complexity, read-only annotation, and complete parameter schema, the description is sufficient for an agent to understand and invoke the tool correctly. Without an output schema, the description does not need to detail return values, and the simple nature of the tool does not require additional caveats.

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?

All three parameters (conid, month, exchange) have clear descriptions in the schema, giving 100% coverage. The tool description merely restates 'underlying security' and 'expiration month' without adding any new semantic information, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 explicitly states the action (Get), the resource (available strike prices), and the scope (for options on an underlying security for a specific expiration month). This clearly distinguishes it from broader tools like get_option_chain or get_option_contracts by focusing specifically on strike prices.

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 context on what the tool does but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives such as get_option_chain or get_option_contracts. Usage is implied rather than contrasted, with no mention of exclusions or preferred scenarios.

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