Options & Derivatives Analytics

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful detail that the output is broken down per expiry and includes computed metrics, but it does not disclose behavior beyond that, such as data freshness, symbol coverage, or response shape.

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 two sentences with no filler. The core action and metric list are front-loaded, and the use-case guidance is appended efficiently. Every clause contributes either to scope, output content, or intended usage.

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?

For a read-only analytics tool with strong annotations and a fully described parameter schema, the description is largely complete: it names the input, the output metrics, the per-expiry breakdown, and the intended use cases. It loses the final point because it does not address the relationship to overlapping siblings like get_option_chain or get_option_iv_history, which would help an agent make a fully informed selection.

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%, with each parameter self-explanatory: symbol is the stock symbol, and ticker/identifier are aliases. The tool description adds no per-parameter meaning beyond the schema, which is acceptable at the baseline 3 since the schema already carries the semantic load.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: "Get derivatives analytics for a stock," then enumerates the exact metrics delivered (ATM IV, IV rank, realized volatility, put-call ratio, max pain, 25-delta skew, open interest). This clearly explains what the tool does, but it never explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings like get_option_chain or get_option_iv_history, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 final sentence says to use it for "options strategy, volatility analysis, and gauging derivatives-market positioning," which gives concrete context for when this tool is appropriate. However, it does not mention alternatives or exclusion criteria, such as when an agent should prefer get_option_chain for raw chain data instead.

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