options_max_pain

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds context about the calculation nature (max pain) but no additional behavioral traits like rate limits or permission requirements. It does not contradict annotations.

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 efficiently convey the tool's purpose. No wasted words, but could be slightly more front-loaded with the action verb.

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 tool's simplicity, good annotations, and full schema coverage, the description is sufficiently complete. No output schema, but the expected result (a number) is implied by the definition.

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 covers both parameters with descriptions (symbol and expiration). The description does not add semantic detail beyond what the schema provides. With 100% schema coverage, baseline score of 3 applies.

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 calculates the max pain strike price, explains the concept as where cumulative option open interest expires worthless, and notes its typical use as support/resistance near expiration. It differentiates from sibling tools like options_chain by focusing on a specific derived metric.

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 implies usage near expiration for support/resistance analysis but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like options_chain or options_implied_move. No guidance on when not to use.

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