Get Iv Rv Spread

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses the computation method (ATM implied vs Garman-Klass realized) which conveys the core behavior, but it does not mention data sources, assumptions, edge cases, or that this is a read-only calculation.

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 that front-loads the action and resource, then adds definitional detail and practical context. Every part earns its place with no redundancy.

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 tool is conceptually simple, has an output schema, and the input schema provides parameter descriptions. The description gives the formula and strategic use case, so an agent has enough context to invoke it correctly; only explicit alternative routing is missing.

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 should compensate for parameter meaning, but it does not mention base_coin or rv_window at all. The nested schema does describe the parameters, yet the tool description itself adds no value for parameter selection or impact.

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?

States a specific verb ('Compute') and an unambiguous resource ('IV-RV spread'), and defines the metric as ATM implied vol vs Garman-Klass realized vol. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_skew_analysis or get_vol_surface_metrics.

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?

Identifies a clear use case: it is a key metric for vol-selling strategies. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives such as get_vol_surface_metrics 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.