get_charm_exposure

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It defines charm, explains its significance to hedging flows, and states the output format. It does not disclose potential limitations or side effects, but for a read-only data retrieval tool, the provided context is reasonably transparent.

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 well-structured with a clear opening, explanatory context, usage list, and Args/Returns sections. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. The explanation of charm is slightly verbose but adds value for an AI agent.

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?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description needs to cover what, when, and what to expect. It covers the purpose, usage scenarios, parameters, and return type ('Charm exposure by strike'). It lacks detailed output structure or examples, but for a simple tool with two parameters, it is sufficiently 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?

The schema itself has 0% description coverage, but the description's Args section provides useful semantics: 'ticker: Stock symbol' and 'expiration: Specific expiration or None for nearest.' The 'None for nearest' clarification adds meaning beyond the schema's default null value.

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 starts with 'Get charm (delta decay) exposure by strike,' which is a specific verb+resource+scope statement. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_gex or get_options_chain by focusing on charm exposure and the by-strike breakdown.

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 explicitly lists use cases: 'Charm exposure,' 'Delta decay,' and 'Time-based hedging flows.' This gives clear context for when to use the tool, though it does not mention alternatives or explicit 'when not to use' scenarios.

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