get_option_underlying

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

No annotations provided, so description must carry full burden. It discloses data scope (IV/HV, PCR) and constrains begin/end to ≤364 days, but lacks details on rate limits, authentication, or side effects. The return types (time series vs snapshot) are implied but not explicit.

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 relatively concise with two sentences, but the first sentence is a list-like phrase that mixes English and Chinese, slightly reducing clarity. It front-loads the core purpose.

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 no output schema, the description adequately covers parameter usage and date constraints. However, it does not describe the output format or fields returned, leaving some ambiguity for the 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?

With 0% schema coverage, description adds significant meaning: explains the 'view' enum values and their associated parameter usage (list for overview, single + dates for others). However, it does not specify the date format or that 'code' can be a string or array.

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 provides option underlying IV/HV data, with three specific views (volatility, statistic, overview). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_option_chain and get_option_volatility by focusing on underlying metrics and offering batch snapshots.

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 explicit guidance: for overview pass a list of codes, for volatility/statistic pass a single code with begin/end (≤364 days). However, no exclusions or alternative sibling tools are mentioned.

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