get_put_call_ratio

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 the operation and scope but does not mention data source, aggregation method, refresh behavior, or whether this is a market snapshot versus a computed value. For a no-parameter tool, this is thin but not misleading.

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, focused sentence that conveys the essential action, resource, and scope. There is no redundant or filler content.

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 simple no-parameter read tool, the description is mostly complete: the action and scope are clear, and an output schema exists so return values do not need to be explained. The only gap is the lack of behavioral context like computation basis or refresh timing, but that is minor for this tool's complexity.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics burden on the description. The schema is trivially complete, and the description adds the scope of the PCR calculation.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and a clear resource ('current put-call ratio') with a defined scope ('across index/stock option contracts'). It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like get_option_greeks or get_market_quote.

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 clearly implies the tool is for retrieving the current PCR, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or mention any exclusions. An agent can infer the basic use case, but there is no explicit routing guidance.

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