Fix: min/max price filters on OptionsChainInput are never validated (#32)

[MarketDataDev03]

Fix: min/max price filters on OptionsChainInput are never validated

Closes #32

Problem

OptionsChainInput declared a model_validator meant to enforce min ≤ max on
the bid/ask price filters, but the check never ran. It reused the date-only
helper _validate_min_max_dates, which compares the two values only when both
pass check_is_date(...). Bid/ask filters are float, so the comparison was
skipped entirely and an inverted range was accepted silently:

# Before: constructs fine, no error raised.
OptionsChainInput(symbol="AAPL", min_bid=5.0, max_bid=1.0)
OptionsChainInput(symbol="AAPL", min_ask=10.0, max_ask=2.0)

This sent obviously invalid requests to the API instead of rejecting them
client-side, defeating the purpose of the validator. There was also a typo in
the local variable (params_typles).

Changes

• exceptions.py — introduced a common base MinMaxValidationError, with
  two specialized subclasses sharing it:
  • MinMaxValueValidationError — numeric ranges.
  • MinMaxDateValidationError — date ranges (previously a direct subclass of
    BaseMarketdataException; now also catchable as MinMaxValidationError).
• input_types/base.py — added a numeric-aware helper
  _validate_min_max_value(min_param, max_param) that raises
  MinMaxValueValidationError when both bounds are set and min > max. The
  existing _validate_min_max_dates is kept for genuine date ranges.
• input_types/options.py — OptionsChainInput.validate_input now uses
  _validate_min_max_value for the (min_bid, max_bid) and (min_ask, max_ask)
  pairs, and fixed the params_typles → params_tuples typo.

Why a separate helper instead of reusing the date helper

Date filters can be datetime.date or strings in several formats, so they need
the check_is_date gating. Price filters are plain numbers and just need a
direct min > max comparison. Keeping the two helpers separate avoids
overloading one path and keeps each validation intent explicit.

Scope note

min_open_interest, min_volume, max_bid_ask_spread, and
max_bid_ask_spread_pct have no min/max counterpart in the model, so there are
no other ordered numeric pairs to validate.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 100.00%. Comparing base (69eb52c) to head (2f9961a).
⚠️ Report is 3 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff            @@
##              main       #33   +/-   ##
=========================================
  Coverage   100.00%   100.00%           
=========================================
  Files           52        52           
  Lines         2284      2293    +9     
=========================================
+ Hits          2284      2293    +9     

Flag	Coverage Δ
unittests	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Harness.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.