get_stock_greek_exposure

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but doesn't explain how it behaves—e.g., whether it returns real-time or historical data, error handling for invalid tickers, rate limits, or data freshness. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand operational constraints.

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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every part of the sentence contributes directly to understanding the tool's purpose.

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?

Given the complexity of financial data tools and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover what 'Greek exposure' entails (e.g., delta, gamma, theta, vega), the format or units of the response, or any behavioral aspects like data sources or update frequency. This leaves the agent with insufficient context for reliable use.

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 the parameter 'ticker' fully documented in the schema as 'Stock ticker symbol'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as format examples (e.g., 'AAPL' vs 'AAPL.US') or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

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 action ('Get') and target resource ('Greek exposure for a ticker'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from most siblings by focusing on Greek exposure specifically, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from tools like 'get_stock_iv_rank' or 'get_stock_volatility_stats' which might cover related financial metrics.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks context about prerequisites, such as whether the ticker must be valid or if there are specific market conditions. It doesn't mention any sibling tools as alternatives or complementary options.

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