option_history_greeks_first_order

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does mention the midpoint-price source and a 1-month limit, but it fails to describe the response format, output structure, or any access requirements. The description also omits what specific Greek letters (delta, gamma, etc.) are included, leaving the agent to guess.

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 and front-loaded, delivering the core purpose and a key constraint in a single sentence. The '[STANDARD]' tag is minor but does not detract. Every word contributes value, making it appropriately sized.

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 complexity (15 parameters, 3 required) and the absence of an output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain how date ranges, intervals, or strike filtering work together, nor does it indicate what the response will look like. The agent would need to rely entirely on the schema, which lacks usage context.

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?

All 15 parameters have descriptions in the input schema (100% coverage), so the description adds no parameter-specific meaning. Per the rubric, a baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema already fully documents parameters, and the description does not need to compensate.

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 what the tool does: it provides historical first-order Greeks derived from midpoint prices. The constraint 'Max 1 month per request' adds scoping. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like option_history_greeks_second_order and option_history_greeks_all by the 'first-order' qualifier.

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 implies usage for fetching historical first-order Greeks data, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives such as option_history_trade_greeks_first_order or option_history_greeks_eod. No exclusions or alternative tool names are provided, leaving the guidance merely implicit.

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