calculate_expected_move

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It explains the derivation from ATM straddle pricing and returns a dollar and percentage range, but it omits behavioral details such as whether the operation is read-only, what happens when no options data is available, or the assumption of a one-standard-deviation move. This is moderate but not comprehensive.

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 exceptionally well-structured: a concise purpose sent, a brief definition, a bulleted usage list, an args section, and a returns section. Every part earns its place with no redundancy, making it easy for an AI to parse and act on.

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 tool's simplicity (2 params, no output schema), the description covers the essential elements: what it does, when to use it, parameter meanings, and return value. It lacks explicit mention of statistical confidence (e.g., one standard deviation) and potential edge cases like illiquid options, but it is otherwise complete.

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 0% (only titles are provided), so the description's parameter explanations are essential. It adds meaningful definitions: 'ticker: Stock symbol' and 'expiration: Specific expiration or None for nearest'. This compensates well, though it could be more specific about date formats or symbol conventions.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Calculate the expected move based on ATM straddle pricing.' It clearly defines the expected move concept and distinguishes this tool from siblings like get_earnings_move_analysis or calculate_probability_of_profit by focusing on the ATM-straddle-derived price range.

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?

A dedicated bulleted 'Use this tool when' section lists explicit use cases (e.g., 'Expected move or implied move', 'Options-implied price range'), providing clear guidance on when to invoke the tool. However, it does not mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, leaving room for improvement.

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