equity_options_signal

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. Description adds that data comes from yfinance and warns about noise in options flow, enriching the behavioral understanding beyond annotations.

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?

Well-structured with a summary, explanatory paragraph, and Args/Returns/Examples. Front-loaded with main purpose. Slightly verbose but each part adds value.

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 the tool's moderate complexity and presence of output schema, description covers input, output fields, and behavioral caveats. No significant gaps.

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%, but description compensates by listing Args with ticker and response_format, giving examples (e.g., 'NVDA', 'AAPL'), and explaining output format. This adds value over the schema's basic 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?

Description clearly states 'Get the 1-month implied move and put/call OI skew for a stock' with source (yfinance). It uses specific verbs and resource, and distinguishes from sibling tools like equity_analyze_ticker by focusing on options signals.

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?

Description provides usage context: implied move as risk-sizing tool, and directional score as low conviction secondary indicator. It implies when to use (when needing options market sentiment) but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools.

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