options_greeks

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the default expiry behavior ('uses nearest if not provided') and that it returns both calls and puts. However, it omits data source details, latency, rate limits, or any prerequisites, and includes a promotional sentence that adds no behavioral clarity.

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 well-structured with a clear purpose sentence, a 'Provides' section, Args, and Examples. However, the marketing line ('Covers features Sensibull Pro charges ₹1,300/month for — free here.') is non-essential fluff, and the Greek definitions are somewhat verbose for an AI agent that likely already knows these terms.

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 covers the core purpose, both parameters, default behaviors, and includes usage examples. Since an output schema exists (though not shown), return value details are presumably handled. For a 2-parameter calculator with no annotations, this is sufficiently complete.

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 provides zero descriptions, but the description fully compensates by defining `symbol` as an NSE stock or index symbol with concrete examples (NIFTY, RELIANCE, INFY) and `expiry` as an optional YYYY-MM-DD string with default behavior. Examples illustrate usage of both parameters in context.

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 'Calculate Black-Scholes Greeks (Delta, Gamma, Theta, Vega, Rho) for all option strikes,' clearly stating the verb and resource. It also lists the specific Greeks and notes 'Full chain with Greeks for both calls and puts,' distinguishing it from OI-focused siblings like options_oi_analytics.

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 through examples like `options_greeks("NIFTY")` and explicit parameter descriptions. However, it does not mention when to use this tool over alternatives such as `nse_options_chain` or `technical_indicators`, nor does it provide any exclusions or alternative recommendations.

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