get_volatility_metrics

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It mentions implementation details (Wilder ATR, annualization) but does not state whether the operation is read-only, what side effects exist, authentication requirements, or limits. The description is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's safety profile.

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 a single paragraph of moderate length. It front-loads the main purpose but mixes general functionality with a specific implementation note. While not overly verbose, it lacks structure (e.g., sections) that would improve readability for an agent.

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?

Given 9 parameters with no schema descriptions and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It provides an overview of what the tool computes but does not explain how to configure parameters or interpret results. An agent would struggle to invoke this tool correctly without additional 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% for 9 parameters, yet the description does not explain critical parameters like 'windows', 'annualize', 'useLogReturns', 'cacheTtlMs', or 'view'. The only parameter mentioned is 'aggregates.atr', which is not an input. This fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 explicitly states the tool calculates volatility indicators (volatility, ATR, realized vol) and lists specific methods (RV, ATR, Parkinson, etc.). It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing solely on volatility metrics, and name 'get_volatility_metrics' is precise. No sibling tool duplicates this functionality.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'analyze_indicators' or 'analyze_market_signal'. It does not mention prerequisites, fallbacks, or exclusions. The only usage hint is internal ('track volatility changes with RV/Parkinson'), not for tool selection.

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