get_stock_iv_rank

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 only states what the tool does without mentioning any behavioral traits such as data freshness, rate limits, error handling, or output format. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how the tool behaves in practice.

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 extremely concise with a single sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded and wastes no words, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what IV rank is, how it's calculated, the format of the return value, or any limitations. For a tool with no structured behavioral data, this leaves the agent with insufficient context to use it effectively.

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 description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'ticker' clearly documented in the schema as 'Stock ticker symbol'. The description does not add any meaning beyond this, but since the schema fully covers the parameter, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description does not compensate or detract.

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 resource ('IV rank for a ticker'), making the purpose understandable. However, it does not differentiate this tool from its many siblings (e.g., get_stock_info, get_stock_volatility_stats) beyond the specific metric, leaving room for ambiguity in a crowded toolset.

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. With numerous sibling tools for stock data (e.g., get_stock_info, get_stock_volatility_stats), the description lacks context on when IV rank is specifically needed or what distinguishes it from other stock metrics.

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