Volatility Cone

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

The annotations include readOnlyHint: true, and the description does not contradict this. It adds some context about the tool's behavior (comparing current IV to historical RV, returning percentile rankings) but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like data sources, update frequency, or limitations. Since annotations already cover safety, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 with a lead sentence, explanatory context, explicit usage bullets, and args section. It is not overly verbose and front-loads the core purpose. Could be slightly more concise by trimming some repetitive explanation, but it earns a above-average score.

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 tool's moderate complexity and lack of an output schema, the description provides a basic overview of returns ('Volatility cone data with percentile rankings') but lacks specifics about the data structure, time horizons, or limitations. It covers usage well but could be more complete for a specialized analysis tool.

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 description coverage is 0%, meaning the schema properties have no descriptions. The tool description compensates by explaining 'ticker: Stock symbol' and 'periods: Comma-separated periods in days (default "10,20,30,60,90")'. This adds meaning beyond the raw schema, but does not deeply explain how periods affect the cone or what 'stock symbol' implies. Moderate value.

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's function: 'Get volatility cone comparing current IV to historical realized volatility.' This uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('volatility cone') with a clear purpose, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_iv_rank and get_volatility_risk_premium.

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 explicit usage triggers: 'Use this tool when the user asks about: IV vs realized volatility comparison, Volatility cone analysis, Historical volatility distribution, Whether options are fairly priced.' It does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternative tools, but gives clear context for appropriate invocation.

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