QuantOracle

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

Annotations cover safety properties (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint), so the description isn't burdened with those. It adds value by specifying the mathematical estimators used, but omits details about return format (whether it returns all four volatility measures or selects one), array length requirements beyond the schema minimum, or handling of missing optional data.

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?

Extremely compact single sentence front-loaded with the core concept. Every term serves a purpose: 'Realized volatility' identifies the domain, the colon-delimited list specifies variants, and 'from OHLC' maps to input requirements. Zero 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?

For a pure calculation utility with no output schema, the description adequately covers inputs and processing logic. It could benefit from mentioning whether the tool returns multiple values (one per method) or requires method selection, but the essential information for invocation is present.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds value by mapping the parameters to the finance domain concept 'OHLC' (Open/High/Low/Close) and linking specific price arrays to their required estimators (e.g., noting GK/YZ need open prices), providing semantic context beyond the schema's mechanical descriptions.

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 explicitly identifies the resource (realized volatility) and specific calculation methods (close-to-close, Parkinson, Garman-Klass, Yang-Zhang), distinguishing it from the sibling 'options_implied-vol' tool which calculates market-implied rather than historical volatility.

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 lists the available volatility estimators, implicitly suggesting which to use based on available data (e.g., Parkinson requires high/low), but lacks explicit guidance on when to prefer this over 'stats_sharpe-ratio' or other risk metrics, and doesn't clarify whether all methods are calculated simultaneously or selected via parameters.

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