get_skew_analysis

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral transparency. It only states the analytical function, with no mention of side effects, permissions, rate limits, or data freshness. The agent cannot infer safety or performance characteristics.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence of 11 words. It efficiently states the core function without redundancy, though it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description omits crucial context like usage scenarios, limitations, and differentiation from similar tools. Given the tool's analytical nature and nested parameters, the description is insufficient for an agent to determine when and how to invoke it correctly.

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?

The description does not mention or explain the parameters (base_coin, min_oi). Although the input schema includes brief descriptions, the tool description adds no additional context, such as how base_coin affects skew or how min_oi filters results. This is particularly problematic given the nested parameter structure.

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 identifies the tool's purpose: analyzing volatility skew and term structure across strikes and expiries. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_vol_surface_metrics, which may focus on surface metrics rather than skew specifically.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus other analysis tools (e.g., get_flow_analysis, get_gex_analysis). It lacks any context about prerequisites, alternatives, or suitability.

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