Volatility Risk Premium

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

The tool is annotated readOnlyHint, and the description does not suggest any side effects. It clearly states what it calculates and returns, without ambiguity. The description also explains the meaning of the metric, making its behavior transparent.

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 a bit long but well-structured. It includes the formula, interpretation, use cases, args, and returns. It could be slightly more concise, but the extra information is valuable and not redundant. The structure with sections makes it easy to read.

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?

The description includes the formula, the interpretation of positive/negative values, explicit usage scenarios, explanations of parameters, and what it returns. It provides all necessary context for a caller to understand the tool's behavior and output. There is no missing critical information.

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?

Even though the schema lacks descriptions, the tool description provides clear explanations for all parameters: ticker as stock symbol, lookback_days for realized vol calculation, and view with three options. Defaults are mentioned. This fully covers the parameter meanings.

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 defines the tool's function: calculating the volatility risk premium and provides the formula. It distinguishes the tool by focusing on VRP, which is unique among the sibling tools. The explicit use cases help clarify its purpose.

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 states when to use the tool, listing specific user queries such as 'Volatility risk premium or VRP' and 'IV vs RV spread'. It also explains the interpretation of positive/negative VRP, which helps in deciding when it's appropriate. This is explicit guidance.

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