compute_volatility_surface

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, open-world, non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context about data source (real Polygon options chain) and specific outputs (e.g., IV rank, percentile, vol regime), going beyond annotations. No contradictions.

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 with no wasted words. Front-loaded with the core computation, then lists specific outputs and signals. Excellent efficiency.

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?

Without an output schema, the description explains all computed outputs and signals in detail. It lacks explicit return format (e.g., JSON) but covers the essential information for an agent to understand what the tool produces. Mostly complete for its complexity.

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 50%: expiry_filter has a clear description, but symbol lacks description. The description implies symbol is an equity ticker via 'Polygon options chain', but does not add format details. The description adds marginal meaning beyond the schema.

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 computes a full implied volatility surface from Polygon options chain data and lists specific outputs (IV per strike/expiry, skew, term structure, IV rank/percentile, regime) and generated signals. It distinguishes this tool from typical get tools but does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_vix_term_structure.

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 use when needing IV surface from Polygon options, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use alternatives or when not to use this tool. No context on prerequisites or limitations.

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