get_term_structure

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral transparency. It explains the output conceptually—'Shows how implied volatility varies across different expiration dates'—and adds interpretive context about contango and backwardation. It does not detail exact output format or limitations, but for a read-only query tool, this is sufficient.

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 a brief intro, an explanatory note, a usage list, Args, and Returns. At roughly 100 words, it is compact, though the use-case list partially overlaps with the opening statement. Overall, every section serves a purpose.

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?

Since there is no output schema, the description should explain return values. It only says 'Term structure data by expiration', which is vague and doesn't specify units, data structure, or ordering. The tool is simple, but a bit more detail on the expected return format would make it fully complete.

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 has one parameter with 0% description coverage. The description adds a simple but meaningful definition: 'ticker: Stock symbol', which goes beyond the schema's bare 'string' type. This compensates adequately for a single, self-explanatory 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 opens with 'Get IV term structure across all expirations', a specific verb and resource that clearly identifies the tool's function. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_volatility_cone or get_iv_rank by focusing on IV variation across expirations, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 an explicit 'Use this tool when' list covering term structure, calendar spreads, event-driven vol bumps, and contango vs backwardation. This gives clear context for when to use it, but it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, so full exclusion/alternative guidance is missing.

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