iv_rank

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. 'Get' signals a read-only operation, and the threshold explanation adds behavioral meaning about how to interpret the returned values. It does not discuss auth, rate limits, or output shape, but those are not critical for this data-only tool.

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?

Two tightly written sentences: the first enumerates the returned metrics and scope, the second gives the key trading interpretation. 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 two-parameter read-only tool with full schema coverage, the description is nearly complete: it names all outputs and explains how to interpret IV Rank. The lack of an output schema and explicit return format is a minor gap, not a blocker.

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 100%, so the schema already documents currency and period including the default. The description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond mentioning cryptocurrency and the thresholds; therefore it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 the specific verb 'Get' and names four concrete metrics (IV Rank, IV Percentile, HV30, VRP) for a cryptocurrency. This clearly distinguishes iv_rank from volatility siblings like get_historical_volatility and get_volatility_index by identifying the composite ranking output.

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 actionable decision context with thresholds: IV Rank > 50 is rich for selling premium and < 30 is cheap for buying. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when-not-to-use, but the context is clear enough for a trading-oriented agent.

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