Get Covered Call Signal

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the analytical components it uses (IV-RV spread, vol regime, term structure, skew check) and frames the result as a signal/recommendation, implying a non-executing analysis tool. It does not spell out side effects or data prerequisites, but no contradiction or hidden mutation is suggested.

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?

A single sentence with a colon-separated list communicates the full analytical scope with no filler. The primary action and output type are front-loaded, followed by the contributing checks.

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?

The description covers the core signal components and output shape, while an output schema exists to document return details. It lacks explicit usage exclusions and parameter-level guidance, but for a focused signal tool it is largely sufficient for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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 reported as 0%, and the tool description does not compensate by explaining individual parameters such as max_dte, base_coin, target_delta, or iv_rv_threshold. It hints at IV-RV and OTM strike selection, but an agent must infer how the parameters map to the go/no-go logic.

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 names a specific action ('Evaluate covered call entry signal') and a concrete output ('go/no-go... recommended OTM strike'). It clearly differentiates this from sibling raw-metric tools like get_iv_rv_spread and get_skew_analysis by packaging those inputs into one decision-oriented signal.

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 intended use case is stated directly: evaluating a covered call entry signal. This provides clear context for tool selection, but the description does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternatives for standalone metrics, so it misses the top tier.

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