get_levels

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only states it returns a LevelsResponse JSON computed by the analytics engine. It does not disclose read-only status, potential errors, or any side effects, leaving the agent under-informed about behavioral traits.

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 well-structured, with a summary line and an Args section, using no unnecessary words. It is appropriately front-loaded with 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?

For a simple 2-param read-only tool, the description is fairly complete, explaining inputs and the general output type. However, it lacks detail on the exact structure of the LevelsResponse and error conditions, so it is not perfect.

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?

Despite 0% schema coverage, the description fully explains the meaning of both symbol and expiration, including the 'all' keyword and default behavior of omitting for nearest expiry, adding significant semantic value beyond the raw 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 returns key options-derived price levels for a symbol (support/resistance style from gamma and open-interest structure), specifying the resource and distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_gex or get_greeks.

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 explains expiration parameter usage (specific timestamp, 'all', omit for nearest), but it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool compared to alternatives from the sibling list. The usage context is implied but not contrasted with other tools.

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