get_greeks_heatmap

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses the return type and structure ('matrix of Greek values that can be visualized as a heatmap') but does not elaborate on data freshness, default maturity range, pagination, or any side effects. This is adequate for a simple read-only tool but leaves clear gaps in behavioral expectations.

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 sections for purpose, usage, Args, and Returns. It is moderately concise, though the 'Useful for understanding the Greek landscape across the chain.' sentence adds limited value and borders on redundancy. Overall, it is organized and efficient, earning a 4.

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 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description needs to provide sufficient context. It explains the tool's purpose, parameters, and return value. It does not specify data source or freshness, but given the simplicity of a heatmap tool, the description is largely complete for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does excellently. It includes an 'Args' section that explains each parameter: ticker as 'Stock symbol', greek with valid values ('delta', 'gamma', 'theta', 'vega'), and option_type with 'calls' or 'puts'. The description adds meaning beyond the bare schema, fully covering all three parameters.

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+resource: 'Get Greeks visualization data across strikes and expirations.' It clearly states the tool's function and differentiates it from siblings like get_options_chain or get_third_order_greeks by emphasizing the heatmap matrix aspect. The return statement 'Returns a matrix of Greek values that can be visualized as a heatmap' further solidifies the purpose.

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: Greeks across strikes, Delta/gamma/theta/vega heatmap, Greek distribution.' This gives clear context for when to use. However, it does not mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, so it lacks explicit exclusions, meriting a 4 rather than a 5.

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