option_history_trade_greeks_implied_volatility

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry transparency. It discloses a 1-month limit and expiration requirement, but does not explain the nature of trade data, output format, or how parameters like version, rate_type, or date range affect behavior. The claim 'IV calculated at each trade' is minimal and vague.

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 short but poorly structured; the '[PROFESSIONAL]' prefix is fluff, and the main sentence lacks an imperative verb. It is under-specified rather than concise, sacrificing clarity for brevity.

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?

This is a 15-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, so the description carries a heavy burden. The two short phrases are severely inadequate: they do not explain what data is returned, how trades are scoped, or how to set up a valid request. Critical context for correct invocation is entirely missing.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema; 'requires expiration' simply repeats a required field. Since all parameters are already documented, the description provides no additional semantic value.

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 'IV calculated at each trade' is a noun phrase rather than a clear verb+resource statement. It doesn't explicitly say 'fetch' or 'list', and it fails to distinguish this from sibling option_history_* tools. The name suggests the resource, but the description does not provide a clear purpose.

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 only mentions constraints ('Max 1 month, requires expiration') but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like option_history_greeks_implied_volatility or option_snapshot_greeks. There are no explicit when/when-not statements or references to sibling tools.

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