Third-Order Greeks

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

With readOnlyHint=true, the annotation already indicates a safe read operation. The description adds value by defining each Greek (Speed, Zomma, Color, Vomma, Ultima) and what it measures, giving the agent a better understanding of the returned data beyond 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 well-structured and front-loaded with the purpose. The bullet-like definitions are useful, though the 'Returns: Third-order Greeks data' line is redundant with the first sentence. Overall, it is concise and every major section earns its place.

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 the lack of output schema and the mathematical nature of the tool, the description adequately explains what the tool returns (the five Greeks) and their meanings. It also covers usage context and parameter basics. It could mention edge cases or result format, but it is complete enough for an agent 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, but the description compensates with an Args section: 'ticker: Stock symbol, expiration: Specific expiration or None for nearest.' This adds meaning beyond the bare schema names, especially the expiration semantics. It could be more detailed (e.g., date format) but is adequate for the two parameters.

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 tool 'Get third-order Greeks: Speed, Zomma, Color, Vomma, Ultima' with a specific verb and resource. It enumerates the exact outputs, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_greeks_heatmap or get_gex.

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?

Explicit guidance is provided: 'Use this tool when the user asks about: Third-order Greeks, Speed, zomma, color, Advanced Greeks analysis.' This clearly indicates when to use it, though it does not mention alternatives or exclusions, so it's a 4 rather than a 5.

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