get_position_greeks

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds substantial behavior beyond these: undPrice is the forward IB used, multiplier is from the contract, settlementDate is the actual expiry, and missing greeks are listed rather than dropped. It also hints at data subscription requirements, providing rich behavioral context.

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 lengthy but structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a return field list and a bulleted list of key nuances. Every sentence carries substantive information, and the bullet format improves readability without padding.

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 an output schema and one well-documented optional parameter, the description is complete. It explains critical interpretation details (forward vs spot, multiplier scaling, settlement date vs last trade date, and missing-row behavior) that are not derivable from the schema alone. It fully covers the tool's context.

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?

The schema has 100% description coverage for its single optional parameter ('symbol'), with a clear description. The tool description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies because the schema already handles parameter semantics adequately.

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: 'IB's model greeks for every option position.' It clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings, such as get_vol_surface, by noting these are 'its numbers, not ones implied locally.' This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 clear context for when to use this tool—when broker model greeks are needed, not local implied ones—and explains caveats like settlement date and missing greeks. However, it does not explicitly mention sibling alternatives or state when not to use the tool, so it stops short of a full 5.

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