get_vanna_analysis

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only states the function without details on side effects, permissions, rate limits, or computational cost. It doesn't describe what 'impact' means or how results are returned.

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 sentence, concise and to the point. However, it is slightly underspecified; a bit more detail would not hurt 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?

Given the tool's niche nature (Vanna), the description assumes knowledge of options Greeks. It does not explain return values despite presence of an output schema, and fails to provide sufficient context for a complete understanding.

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 adds no meaning beyond the input schema, which already defines 'base_coin' and 'price_move' with defaults and descriptions. The tool description does not enhance understanding of parameter usage or constraints.

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 specifies a clear verb ('Analyze') and resource ('Vanna exposure and volatility impact'), and the term 'Vanna' distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_gex_analysis' or 'get_skew_analysis'. However, the verb 'Analyze' is slightly generic.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to analyze Vanna vs. Gamma or Vega). The description lacks context for selection among many similar analysis tools.

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