IV Term Structure

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already covers safety. The description adds interpretive context (contango/backwardation) but does not provide additional behavioral details like rate limits or side effects, which is acceptable given the annotation.

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 concise and well-structured, with a brief opening statement and a bulleted list of use cases. No redundant or vague language.

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?

Given there is no output schema, the description need not explain return values. It provides sufficient context for a simple tool, including what data is returned (term structure) and when to use it.

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 only parameter 'ticker' is described as 'Stock symbol' in the description, but the schema itself only provides type and title. While this adds minimal clarification, it does not fully compensate for the lack of schema description, leaving the parameter's purpose underspecified.

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 clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'IV term structure', specifying 'across all expirations'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_options_chain 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 lists when to use the tool with concrete scenarios (term structure of volatility, calendar spread opportunities, event-driven vol bumps, contango vs backwardation). This provides clear guidance for selection.

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