get_vol_structure

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It explains the response shape, key interpretation semantics (skew, termSlope, backwardation), default expiration behavior, and access plan. It does not mention error cases or rate limits, but for a read-oriented data retrieval tool the disclosed behavior is substantial.

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 organized with an opening definition, access plan, args, and returns. The skew and term-structure explanations are useful rather than padding, though 'Plan: Trader and up' is slightly out of place and the return section is dense.

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?

No output schema is provided, so the description reasonably compensates by enumerating the VolStructureResponse fields and their interpretation. It covers both parameters and return semantics, though it lacks explicit comparison to sibling tools and error/edge-case behavior.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does: symbol is defined as the underlying ticker, and expiration is explained as a Unix timestamp, the special value 'all', and the omit-for-nearest-expiry behavior. This adds real meaning 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 that the tool returns volatility structure—skew across strikes and term structure across expirations—and describes the response fields. It is distinct enough to be recognized against vol-related siblings, but it does not explicitly name or contrast alternatives 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?

Usage is implied: an agent seeking skew or term-structure data would infer this tool is relevant. 'Plan: Trader and up' gives an access prerequisite, but there is no explicit guidance about when to choose this over sibling tools or when not to use it.

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