Volatility Surface

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already discloses the tool is non-mutating. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: what each surface mode means, including the comparison mode's purpose of highlighting potential rich/cheap spots. It also indicates the output shape ('rows per expiration'), which is useful for an agent.

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 appropriately sized, front-loaded with the core purpose, and uses a clean bulleted list for the three surface modes. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundant repetition of schema or annotation data.

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 low complexity with two parameters, one required, and the description covers parameter meanings, usage intent, and a rough return shape. It could more explicitly describe the row fields or whether multiple expirations are returned together, but the given context is sufficient for an initial invocation.

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?

Although the input schema provides only types and defaults, the description fully explains the 'surface' parameter with its three valid values and their semantics. The 'ticker' description is minimal ('Stock symbol') but adequate for a well-known parameter.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Get the ORATS monies volatility surface for a ticker.' It clearly differentiates the tool from siblings by naming the specific surface type and enumerating the three modes ('implied', 'forecast', 'comparison'), which no other sibling covers.

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 states when to use the tool: for the vol surface or smoothed IV by delta, model-vs-market disagreement, and rich/cheap IV spots. It does not explicitly name alternative tools for related but different tasks, such as get_term_structure, so it falls short of a 5.

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