option_history_greeks_implied_volatility

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does disclose a one-month limit per request, which is useful, but it fails to mention the return format, whether data is point-in-time, timezone handling, or any rate-limiting implications. The lack of output schema further increases the need for such detail.

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 with minimal waste. The '[STANDARD]' prefix is terse but likely meaningful, and the whole text is front-loaded with the key verb and resource. It is appropriately sized for the limited content it conveys.

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?

The tool is complex with 15 parameters and no output schema, but the description is extremely sparse. It does not explain what the response looks like, how intervals behave beyond a one-month cap, or any prerequisites. While the schema provides parameter details, the description leaves critical usage context uncovered, making it incomplete 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?

All 15 parameters have descriptions in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, although the phrase 'from bid, mid, and ask prices' hints at the data source but does not clarify how parameters like version or rate_type affect the IV calculation. Thus it neither elevates nor degrades parameter understanding.

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 the tool provides historical implied volatility from bid, mid, and ask prices, which conveys the core action and resource. It implies a time-series endpoint but does not explicitly distinguish from the trade-based variant (option_history_trade_greeks_implied_volatility) in the sibling list, though the 'bid, mid, and ask' qualifier hints at the distinction.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as snapshots or trade-greeks variants. It only notes a maximum request window of one month, which is a constraint but not a usage rule or comparison. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided.

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