get_volume_profile

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of disclosing side effects and operational characteristics. It states the tool 'Shows where volume and OI concentrate' and returns 'Per-strike volume/OI profile,' but it doesn't explicitly note read-only behavior, data limitations, or potential delays. For a simple retrieval, this is adequate but not rich.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a concise use-case list and an Args/Returns block. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no filler or repetition.

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?

For a tool with two parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the purpose, usage guidance, parameter semantics, and return content. It gives the agent enough to select and invoke the tool correctly, and the sibling context confirms it stands apart.

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's Args section provides the only semantics. It defines ticker as 'Stock symbol' and expiration as 'Expiration date YYYY-MM-DD (default: nearest),' adding clear meaning beyond the raw schema. This fully compensates for the lack of schema descriptions, though it doesn't go into additional detail like allowed formats beyond date.

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 'Get the option volume and open-interest profile by strike,' clearly stating the action and resource. It further explains that it shows volume/OI concentration and implies support/resistance, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_options_chain 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?

The description includes an explicit 'Use this tool when the user asks about' list covering OI, volume by strike, and OI-implied support and resistance. It doesn't mention when not to use it or name sibling alternatives, but the usage guidance is clear and actionable.

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