options_implied_move

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, safe operation. Description adds behavioral context: it calculates implied move using ATM straddle and can be used to compare implied vs historical moves. No contradictions with annotations.

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?

Two concise sentences: first states the function, second explains usage context. No redundant information, well-structured for quick understanding.

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?

Tool is simple (2 params, no output schema). Description explains what it calculates and how to interpret results (implied move, compare to historical). Sufficient for an agent to use 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 coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for both parameters (symbol and expiration). Description does not add parameter-specific details beyond schema, but the mention of 'ATM straddle' provides contextual value. Baseline score is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states the tool calculates the expected move implied by options pricing using ATM straddle. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like options_chain or options_max_pain by specifying its unique function and use case (earnings plays).

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?

Description provides a clear use case: 'Essential for earnings plays' and suggests comparing implied vs historical moves to assess premium. It lacks explicit exclusions or alternatives, but the context is sufficient for typical usage.

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