getHistoricalVolatility

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses: returns hourly data, default behavior (most recent 1 hour), maximum range (30 days), no auth required. It mentions 'Bybit-calculated historical volatility index' but doesn't detail return structure (since no output schema). This is comprehensive but could include more detail on response format.

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 well-structured with sections, bullet points, and an agent hint. It front-loads main purpose. Although somewhat lengthy, every sentence adds value without 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?

Given 6 parameters (1 required) and no output schema, the description covers behavioral details, constraints, and usage scenarios. Missing detailed explanation for period and quoteCoin, but overall it provides sufficient context for correct tool invocation.

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 coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It adds meaning: category must be 'option', baseCoin defaults to BTC, startTime/endTime must be together or omitted. It mentions period but doesn't explain enum values. The agent hint repeats some info. Overall, it adds significant value but not exhaustive for all parameters.

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 queries historical implied volatility data for options with hourly granularity. It specifies the resource (historical volatility index for a base coin) and the action (query). It distinguishes from sibling tools like getTickers which provides current implied 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 explicitly states when to use this (research historical trends, compare averaging periods, backtesting) and when not to use it (for current IV, use getTickers). It also provides constraints (startTime/endTime must be together or omitted) and potential use cases.

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