get_volatility_metrics

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Get' implying read-only, but omits details such as authentication requirements, rate limits, time range of data, or whether multiple symbols are supported. The agent lacks critical context for safe invocation.

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, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose. However, it could include additional context without sacrificing conciseness.

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 the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description is under-specified. It does not explain what volatility metrics are returned (e.g., IV, HV30), the data source, or time period. The tool feels incomplete for an agent to use confidently.

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 only 50% due to an undocumented workflow_id parameter. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema's minimal description of 'symbols'. The purpose of workflow_id remains unexplained, and no guidance on format or constraints is given.

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 retrieves volatility metrics (historical and implied) for given symbols. It distinguishes from siblings like get_price_history and calculate_var by focusing specifically on volatility, but could be more specific about the exact metrics provided.

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 usage guidelines are provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_market_snapshot or calculate_sharpe, nor does it specify preconditions or exclusions.

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