Charm Exposure

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

Annotations include readOnlyHint=true, which already indicates a safe read operation. The description adds context about what charm measures and its relevance to hedging flows, but doesn't disclose additional behavioral traits like return format or any limitations. With annotations covering the safety profile, this is adequate but not rich.

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 clear sections for purpose, usage, args, and returns. It's concise and front-loaded with the key purpose. The use-case list adds value without being verbose.

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 is relatively simple with 2 parameters and no output schema. The description covers the purpose, usage, and parameters adequately. However, it doesn't explain what the return data looks like (beyond 'Charm exposure by strike') or any edge cases, which could be useful for a greeks tool.

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%, so the description must compensate. It lists the parameters (ticker, expiration) with brief explanations ('Stock symbol', 'Specific expiration or None for nearest'), which adds some meaning beyond the schema. However, it doesn't provide format details or examples, and the coverage is minimal.

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 tool gets charm (delta decay) exposure by strike, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on charm exposure specifically, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with similar greek tools like get_third_order_greeks.

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 explicit use cases ('Use this tool when the user asks about: Charm exposure, Delta decay, Time-based hedging flows'), which gives clear context for when to use it. It doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the use cases are specific enough to guide selection.

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