options_put_call_ratio

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by specifying the data source (CBOE), historical nature, and interpretation of ratio values, which informs the agent about behavioral traits beyond 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?

The description is three sentences long, front-loaded with purpose, then adds interpretation and type explanation. Every sentence earns its place; no unnecessary words.

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 simple historical data retrieval tool with well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description is complete. It explains purpose, interpretation, and types, providing sufficient context for the agent to use the tool correctly.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description repeats the enum values for 'type' but does not add new information beyond what schema already provides. No additional detail on 'days' parameter.

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 it gets historical put/call ratio from CBOE, a market-wide sentiment indicator. It distinguishes from sibling tools by being the only one focused on options ratios and sentiment interpretation.

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 context for when to use (market sentiment analysis) and explains interpretation (ratio >1 bearish, <0.7 bullish). It does not explicitly exclude alternatives, but the context is clear.

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