chainvectorVolatility

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool computes multiple volatility metrics and optional percentile ranking, implying a read-only analytical operation. However, it does not describe output structure, data source specifics beyond the 'exchange' parameter, or potential side effects (e.g., rate limits), leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core function and immediately followed by concrete use cases. No wasted words or repetition of schema definitions. Every phrase contributes to understanding or usage.

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 absence of an output schema and annotations, the description reasonably covers input semantics (via schema) and intended use. It lists the metrics computed, which gives a reasonable preview of outputs, but does not specify return format, units, or edge cases. Slightly more detail on output shape would make it more 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining 'expected move over a precise horizon' with an example ('37m') and 'percentile rank vs the trailing 7 days', which clarifies the intent of the `horizon` and `percentile` parameters beyond their schema descriptions. The other parameters are adequately described in 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 'realized-volatility battery' with specific estimators (close-to-close, Parkinson, Garman-Klass, EWMA), plus optional expected move and percentile rank. This specific verb+resource structure distinguishes it from sibling chainvector tools focused on momentum, regime, or signals.

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?

Explicitly states when to use it: 'to size stops/targets and to detect vol-compression setups'. This provides clear context, though it does not name alternative tools or exclusion criteria. The use cases are actionable and align with the tool's analytical purpose.

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