get_stock_volatility_stats

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 'Get volatility statistics' which implies a read-only operation, but does not specify data sources, rate limits, error handling, or output format. For a tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency about how it 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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words, making it easy to parse. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, though it could benefit from more detail, its brevity is not a flaw in this dimension.

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, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on what volatility statistics are returned (e.g., metrics like standard deviation, historical volatility), data recency, or any behavioral context, making it inadequate for informed tool 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the parameter 'ticker' documented as 'Stock ticker symbol'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, as it only mentions 'for a ticker' without elaborating on format or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Get volatility statistics for a ticker' clearly states the action (get) and resource (volatility statistics for a ticker), making the purpose understandable. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_stock_iv_rank' or 'get_stock_info', which might also provide related financial data, so it lacks specificity in distinguishing its unique focus.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools for stock data (e.g., 'get_stock_iv_rank', 'get_stock_info'), there is no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the name alone.

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