Options implied-volatility surface and 25-delta skew

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: the data source ('daily Deribit chain') and the returned components ('expiry x moneyness', per-expiry ATM/25-delta IV, skew/butterfly, constant-30d history'). No contradictions with annotations exist.

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 two efficiently packed sentences with front-loaded usage conditions and a dense but readable inventory of return contents. No filler words or redundant restatements of the tool name.

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 read-only tool with one optional parameter and no required fields, the description sufficiently explains what the agent will get and when to call it. No output schema exists, so the explicit enumeration of return dimensions is valuable; exact formatting/units are not explained, but that is a minor gap for this complexity level.

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 100%, with the only parameter being an optional currency enum already fully described as 'BTC or ETH, default BTC'. The description correctly does not repeat schema details but adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond the schema.

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 a specific verb plus resource ('Call this when the user asks about implied volatility by strike or expiry... Returns the IV surface...') and enumerates the exact contents returned. It is distinct from option-related siblings like get_options_snapshot or get_options_flow by specifying skew, term structure, and the Deribit-derived surface.

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 opening line gives explicit and detailed when-to-use conditions: implied volatility by strike/expiry, skew, put versus call IV, term structure, or downside-protection cost. It does not name alternatives or state when not to use the tool, so it falls short of a full 5.

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