get_volatility_surface

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does this well by stating the return structure: a matrix of expiry × strike → IV, plus ATM IV and skew metrics per expiry. It does not specify exact field names or units, but the behavioral disclosure is substantive.

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?

Three concise sentences with no filler: the first states scope, the second describes the return value, and the third gives the use case. Every sentence 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?

For a single-parameter market-data tool with no output schema, the description explains both the return shape and the intended use case. It is enough for an agent to select and call the tool correctly, though exact response field names and units are left unspecified.

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 100% and the only parameter, currency, is fully documented with an enum. The description only restates 'for a currency' and adds no extra guidance beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Uses a specific verb and resource: get the implied volatility surface across all strikes and expirations for a currency. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_historical_volatility and get_volatility_index because it targets the full strike/expiry matrix of IV.

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?

States a clear context: 'Essential for relative value analysis and vol trading.' It leaves the agent with a concrete sense of when this tool is the right choice, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it.

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