get_overview

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

Despite lacking annotations, the description discloses the return structure via the OverviewResponse JSON fields, the plan requirement, and the behavior of the expiration parameter ('all' vs omit for nearest expiry). It does not cover error handling or data freshness, but provides substantial behavioral context for a read-only analytics tool.

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 compact yet well-structured with clear sections: summary, plan requirement, args, and returns. Each line provides essential information without redundancy, making it easy to scan and understand.

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, the description lists all major return fields (symbol, spotPrice, gexSummary, maxPain[], expectedMoves[], etc.), covering plan requirements and parameter options. However, it omits detailed shapes of nested fields like maxPain[], but overall it is sufficiently complete for a complex overview 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 0%, but the description fully compensates by defining 'symbol' as 'Underlying ticker' and 'expiration' as 'Unix timestamp of a specific expiry, or "all" (recommended for the full dashboard). Omit for the nearest expiry.' This adds clear meaning beyond the bare schema types.

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's function: 'Full analytics dashboard for a symbol in one call' and lists the included components (sentiment, GEX summary, max pain, expected moves, IV surface, term structure, top unusual flow). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on individual metrics (get_max_pain, get_gex).

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?

It explicitly positions the tool as 'the cheapest way to get everything for a symbol at once', indicating when to use it for comprehensive data. It also notes the plan requirement ('Plan: Pro and up'), but does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, leaving some room for ambiguity.

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