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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses pricing ($0.05) and endpoint, but does not mention other behavioral traits such as idempotency, rate limits, or whether it mutates state. As a calculation tool, the read-only nature is implied but not stated.

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, front-loaded with purpose, and includes essential details (input format, flexibility, pricing) without fluff. Every sentence adds value, making it highly scannable 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 the tool's complexity (greeks) and lack of an output schema, the description provides a reasonable overview of outputs ('fair value + full greeks'). However, it could be improved by specifying the return structure or noting that greeks are standard names. Still, it is mostly adequate for an agent to understand the tool's purpose.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description restates the required parameters in a shorthand format but adds no additional semantic detail beyond the schema. The note about 'iv in %' is already in the schema.

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 specifies that it performs Black-Scholes option pricing with full greeks, using a specific verb ('Price') and resource ('option'). It distinguishes from sibling tools by stating 'for ANY option, listed or not', implying broader applicability than exchange-specific tools.

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 the required input format and notes the tool is paid, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., options_price for just price) or when not to use it. The context of 'full greeks' implies use case, but lacks explicit guidance.

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