get_options_analytics

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It adds context about calculations (past year of realised volatility, near-the-money strikes) but does not mention data requirements, limitations, or side effects. It covers some behavioral scope but not fully.

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 sentence that efficiently packs a list of analytics without fluff. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and each listed component adds value.

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 has an output schema, the description need not explain return values. It covers the key analytics and the main scope, but could mention prerequisites like data availability or market data subscriptions. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for a moderately complex analytics tool.

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 100% for both parameters, so the schema already explains symbol and expiration. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning; baseline 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 clearly states what the tool does: it provides options analytics beyond a raw chain, listing specific outputs like IV rank, ATM straddle implied move, skew, and greeks. It distinguishes itself from the sibling get_options_chain via the phrase 'beyond a raw chain'.

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 for users needing advanced options metrics rather than raw chain data. The comparative phrase 'beyond a raw chain' differentiates it from get_options_chain, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state 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.