chainvectorOptionsImpliedProbability

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the data source (listed option prices) and the derived output (risk-neutral distribution), but omits behavioral details such as response format, potential errors when no option chain is available, and the effect of the 'target' parameter on the result. This is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 concise and front-loaded: the first sentence defines the tool's purpose, and the second gives actionable usage guidance. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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 lack of an output schema and annotations, the description explains the concept but not the expected response shape, how the optional 'target' affects the output, or failure scenarios. It is sufficient for a well-known financial concept but incomplete for a fully autonomous agent.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptive parameter documentation (e.g., expiry date filter format, optional strike/price). The tool description adds no additional per-parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the 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 extracts a risk-neutral probability distribution from listed option prices, with a specific output concept (P(price above/below strikes at expiry)). It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'chainvectorProbability' by explicitly grounding it in options-market data and positioning it as a cross-check.

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 provides clear usage context: 'Cross-check the probability engine against what option traders are paying for' implies comparing with the general probability tool. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of alternatives or list exclusions, so it falls short of a 5.

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