get_greeks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: default expiration behavior (omit for nearest), the 'all' option, 'atm' range restriction, moneyness format, and limit semantics. It also describes the return JSON structure. It does not explicitly state read-only behavior or error handling, but the read-only nature is strongly implied by the name and output.

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 well-structured and front-loaded: a clear purpose sentence, a brief plan note, then an Args list and Returns section. The Args section is somewhat lengthy but necessary given the lack of schema descriptions. No unnecessary fluff.

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?

The description covers purpose, all parameters, and the return structure, which is especially valuable given no output schema exists. It lacks examples or edge-case handling, but for a data retrieval tool with moderate complexity, it is sufficiently complete.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It thoroughly documents all five parameters, including symbol, expiration (with 'all' and default behavior), range ('atm'), moneyness (with example format), and limit (per side). This fully explains the parameters beyond the bare 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 Black-Scholes Greeks (Delta, Gamma, Theta, Vega, Rho) plus theoretical price and mispricing for every contract in the chain. This specific verb and resource distinguish it from sibling tools like get_gex or get_max_pain.

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 through its focus on Greeks and mentions 'Plan: Trader and up' as an access constraint, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_snapshot or get_overview. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided.

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