option_history_trade_greeks_third_order

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the pre-requisite of expiration and a 1-month maximum, which is useful context beyond the schema. However, it omits other behavioral traits such as return format, handling of wildcard expiration ('*'), or whether it is a read-only operation.

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 short sentence, front-loaded with the core purpose. There is no fluff or repetitive content, and every word earns its place (aside from the 'PROFESSIONAL' prefix, which is marginal but not harmful).

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 complex tool with 15 parameters, no output schema, and many similar siblings. The description fails to explain how it differs from other trade greeks variations (e.g., first-order, all) or what the return structure looks like. It leaves the agent to infer context from the name alone, which is insufficient for correct invocation.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides; the 'requires expiration' note merely repeats the schema's required field. The 'Max 1 month' constraint is a global limitation, not a parameter semantic.

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 'Third-order greeks at each trade', which is a specific verb+resource (fetch third-order greeks for trade data). This distinguishes it from sibling tools by order (first/second/all) and trade-level vs EOD, so it is easy to identify the correct tool.

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 trade-level third-order greeks and provides constraints ('Max 1 month, requires expiration'), but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusions or alternative tool names are given.

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