get_volatility_risk_premium

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of setting expectations. It explains the behavioral interpretation of the metric (positive VRP favorable to sellers, negative to buyers) and discloses that the tool returns 'VRP data with assessment and strategy recommendation.' This goes beyond the basic 'get' to explain how the output should be understood.

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: a one-line definition, a two-paragraph explanation that earns its place, a bulleted list of use cases, and a clear Args/Returns layout. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and remains focused 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?

Given the absence of an output schema, the return description is brief ('VRP data with assessment and strategy recommendation') and does not specify how the output varies by the 'view' parameter. However, the tool is not overly complex (3 params, no nested objects), and the description sufficiently supports selection and invocation. A 4 is appropriate because the output format gap leaves some ambiguity.

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%, so the description fully compensates. Every parameter is explained: ticker is 'Stock symbol', lookback_days is 'Days for realized vol calculation (default 30)', and view is broken out with allowed values and meanings ('current' snapshot, 'timeseries', 'by_expiration'). This is exemplary parameter documentation.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Calculate the volatility risk premium (IV minus realized volatility).' It defines the metric, explains the meaning of positive and negative values, and enumerates concrete use cases (VRP, IV vs RV spread, sell/buy volatility, premium edge). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_iv_rank 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 provides an explicit 'Use this tool when the user asks about' bullet list covering common query phrasings. It does not, however, mention when NOT to use this tool or name alternative tools (e.g., get_iv_rank for percentile-based assessments), which prevents it from achieving a 5.

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