calculate_greeks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral transparency. It explains the models used but does not disclose error handling, rate limits, or what happens if implied_volatility and market_price are both omitted (the schema implies one is needed but description doesn't clarify). The 'Paid tier only' is helpful but more details would improve transparency.

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 sentences, concise and to the point. The first sentence states the core function, the second adds model and tier info. It could be slightly improved by front-loading the paid tier note, but overall it's efficient and readable.

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 complexity (multiple Greeks, both European and American, array input), the description is fairly complete but lacks details on output format (no output schema). It also doesn't explicitly state the dependency between implied_volatility and market_price. These gaps leave some uncertainty for the agent.

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 the schema already documents all parameters well. The description adds minimal new semantics (e.g., model assignment for style, paid tier constraint). It does not repeat parameter details but doesn't significantly enhance understanding beyond 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 states the tool calculates option Greeks (delta, gamma, theta, vega, rho) for individual options or portfolios, using Black-Scholes for European and binomial for American styles. The 'Paid tier only' note adds a usage constraint, and the tool is well-differentiated from siblings like analyze_risk and monte_carlo_simulation.

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 mentions 'Paid tier only', which is a clear usage condition. It does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, but the sibling tools cover different purposes (risk, optimization, etc.), so the context is clear enough for an agent.

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