option_history_eod

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that the report is generated at 17:15 ET daily, which is a useful timing detail, but it does not explain what data is included, whether it is a read-only operation, any rate limits, or the structure of the report. For an 8-parameter tool, this is insufficient transparency.

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 extremely concise, consisting of a single sentence with no filler or redundancy. It front-loads the key fact that it is an end-of-day report. However, its brevity borders on under-specification, so it does not achieve a 5, but it is still an efficient use of words.

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 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides almost no contextual information. It does not explain what the report contains, how to use filters, what return values look like, or any prerequisites. This is a severely incomplete description for a tool of this complexity.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for all 8 parameters, so the structural meaning of each parameter is already documented. The description itself adds no parameter-specific semantics, but per the rubric, a baseline of 3 is appropriate when schema coverage is high. No additional value is provided by the description in this dimension.

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 states this is an 'End-of-day report for options', which indicates the resource (options) and the type (end-of-day) but lacks a specific verb like 'retrieves' or 'lists'. It does not distinguish this from sibling tools like option_history_greeks_eod, which is also an end-of-day report, so differentiation is weak.

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 alternatives such as option_history_ohlc or option_snapshot_*. It only mentions the generation time (17:15 ET daily), which is a scheduling detail, not usage context. There are no exclusions or alternative recommendations.

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