vol-skew

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and discloses almost nothing: no permissions or auth requirements, no mutation/read profile, no rate limits, no return shape (e.g., strikes included, greeks fields). It states the output concept but not how the tool behaves.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler; the resource and scope are stated immediately. It is appropriately terse, though the terseness also reflects missing detail rather than disciplined economy.

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 five-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. An agent is left without return-format expectations, usage routing, or explanation of the three undocumented required parameters.

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 only 40%; rate and asset_class are documented in the schema, but underlying, expiry_ns, and at_ns have no descriptions anywhere. The tool description adds no parameter meaning, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap on three required arguments.

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 names a specific analytical output (per-strike implied volatility and delta) scoped to a single option expiry, so an agent can tell what it returns. It does not contrast itself with closely related siblings like iv-surface, risk-reversal, or term-structure, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus iv-surface, risk-reversal, or term-structure, all of which live in the same volatility area. The only usage hint comes indirectly from the schema, not the description.

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