get_iv_rank

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

With no annotations provided, the description takes on full transparency duty. It explains the meaning of IV Rank, provides numeric thresholds (high >50, low <30), and notes the return includes interpretation and strategy recommendations. This adds behavioral context about the output, though it doesn't disclose potential quirks like data recency.

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, starting with a one-sentence purpose, followed by a brief conceptual explanation and a bulleted 'Use this tool when' list. The Args and Returns sections are clearly delineated. It is moderately lengthy but every section contributes to usability.

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?

For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential elements: what the tool does, when to use it, parameter definitions, and a general return statement. It could be more specific about the return structure, but the description is sufficient to select and invoke the tool 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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description includes an 'Args' section that defines 'ticker' with examples ('AAPL', 'SPY') and 'lookback_days' with its default (252) and meaning ('Historical lookback period'). It also ties lookback_days to the historical range concept, adding meaning beyond the 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 opens with a clear, specific verb phrase 'Get IV Rank and percentile' with the object 'for a stock.' It then explains what IV Rank is and how to interpret high/low values, distinguishing it from sibling volatility tools like get_volatility_cone.

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 four user intent scenarios in a 'Use this tool when' section (e.g., 'Whether options are expensive or cheap', 'IV rank or IV percentile'), giving clear guidance on when to invoke it. It doesn't name alternative tools, but the provided use cases effectively steer the agent.

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