get_monies_surface

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains what each surface type returns and that comparison shows implied vs forecast side by side to reveal rich/cheap spots. It also states the return format as 'Monies surface rows per expiration.' This is solid, though it doesn't cover potential edge cases or data limitations.

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-organized with bullet points for surface types and usage cases. It is front-loaded with the main purpose, and every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 simple 2-parameter retrieval tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what the tool does, the surface mode options, when to use it, and what it returns. No significant gaps remain.

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 schema provides no descriptions, but the tool description includes an 'Args' section that explicitly defines ticker as 'Stock symbol' and lists all allowed values for surface ('implied', 'forecast', 'comparison'). This fully compensates for the schema's lack of detail.

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 starts with a clear, specific verb and resource: 'Get the ORATS monies volatility surface for a ticker.' It further clarifies the three surface variants (implied, forecast, comparison), making the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools like get_term_structure or 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 provides a 'Use this tool when' section listing three specific use cases, which is strong guidance. However, it does not mention when not to use this tool or point to alternatives, 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.