Greeks Heatmap

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates this is a read operation. The description adds that it returns a matrix of Greek values for visualization, which is useful context, but it does not disclose details like default greek/option_type behavior, data granularity, or any limitations. It does not contradict the annotation.

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 purpose statement, usage guidance, Args, and Returns sections. It is mostly concise, though there is minor redundancy between 'Returns a matrix of Greek values that can be visualized as a heatmap' and the later 'Returns: Heatmap matrix data with strikes and expirations.'

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?

With no output schema, the return description is present but minimal—'Heatmap matrix data with strikes and expirations' does not fully describe the matrix shape or how to interpret it. The description adequately covers the tool's basic purpose and parameters, but lacks deeper context about output structure and relationship to similar sibling tools.

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 no descriptions (0% coverage), but the description compensates by explaining each parameter: ticker is a stock symbol, greek lists allowed values ('delta', 'gamma', 'theta', 'vega'), and option_type specifies 'calls' or 'puts'. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema.

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's function: 'Get Greeks visualization data across strikes and expirations' and mentions it returns a heatmap matrix. It is specific about the resource and scope, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like get_third_order_greeks or get_monies_surface.

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 when-to-use guidance: 'Use this tool when the user asks about: Greeks across strikes, Delta/gamma/theta/vega heatmap, Greek distribution.' It gives clear context but does not mention when not to use it or name alternative tools.

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