get_levels

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the transparency burden. It discloses the `view` parameter's effect on output formatting, but does not state whether the operation is read-only, the response structure, or any error conditions. The read-only nature is implied but not explicit.

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 two concise sentences, front-loading the core purpose and then providing essential format details. No redundant or irrelevant information.

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-oriented tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what levels are returned, which parameters control the call, and output formatting options. It lacks usage context, but that is scored separately.

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 0%, so the description compensates by explaining both parameters: `ticker` is the symbol to query, and `view` formats the output with allowed values. It adds the default ('json') and explains the purpose of each parameter, which is beyond the schema's bare type definitions.

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 clearly states the tool's function: retrieving key price levels for a ticker, and enumerates specific level types (gamma flip, walls, max pain, expected-move bounds). This specificity distinguishes it from sibling tools that handle gamma curves or GEX by strike.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description focuses solely on mechanics (view options) and does not mention prerequisites, typical use cases, or when to prefer other tools like get_gamma_curve.

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