getHistoricalVolatility

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations: no authentication required, default returns most recent 1 hour, startTime/endTime must be paired, maximum query range is 30 days, and only Option products are supported. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 and front-loaded with the core purpose, but it is redundant: the Notes section and the final Agent hint repeat the same startTime/endTime and 30-day-limit constraints already stated earlier. The repeated information could be consolidated.

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 purpose, supported product, authentication, default behavior, time constraints, and the key alternative tool. It is reasonably complete for a read-only data query, though it omits quoteCoin semantics and any hint about the response shape since no output schema is provided.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining category must be 'option', baseCoin defaults to BTC, period relates to averaging periods like 7-day vs 30-day, and startTime/endTime have pairing and range constraints. However, quoteCoin is not explained, and period type/units are only implied rather than stated precisely.

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 opens with a specific action and scope: 'Query historical implied volatility data for options with hourly granularity.' It also names the exact resource (Bybit-calculated historical volatility index for the specified base coin) and explicitly differentiates itself from getTickers for 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 provides explicit 'Use this endpoint when you need to' scenarios, states 'Do not use this endpoint for current implied volatility', and directs the agent to the alternative getTickers with category=option. This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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