calculate_volatility

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral transparency. It states the action but does not disclose any underlying assumptions (e.g., method of volatility calculation, handling of insufficient data, or whether annualization uses square-root-of-time rule). It is transparent about the lack of side effects but omits edge-case behavior.

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, concise sentence that immediately conveys the core functionality. It avoids unnecessary words and is well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 description is complete for triggering a basic volatility calculation but lacks details about the output format or expected result (despite the tool having an output schema, it is not shown). It also does not specify any constraints like minimum number of prices required, which could affect proper 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?

The schema provides names and types but no descriptions. The description only says 'from prices' and does not explain the meaning of 'window' or 'annualize'. For example, it is unclear whether 'window' is the rolling window length in periods or something else. This leaves significant room for misinterpretation.

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 the verb 'Calculate' and the target resource 'volatility' from prices, and explicitly mentions 'rolling' which differentiates it from sibling tools like calculate_returns and calculate_max_drawdown. This makes the tool's purpose immediately identifiable.

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 volatility calculations but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over siblings, such as when to choose volatility over returns or drawdown. No exclusion criteria or context are provided, leaving some ambiguity.

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