fixed_income

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the safe calculation nature is established. The description adds that parameters are passed directly and enumerates indicators, but it does not describe return behavior, response format, or edge cases beyond what annotations and schema already imply.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then clarifies the input style, then enumerates the indicators. It is reasonably concise given the breadth of the tool, though the indicator list partially duplicates the enum in the schema.

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 high complexity of 40 parameters and 12 indicators, the description could do more to map indicators to their relevant parameters. It provides the indicator names and general input guidance, but stops short of helping an agent determine which parameters to supply for each specific calculation; output-schema presence helps but does not fully compensate.

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?

Parameter descriptions in the schema are extensive, so the description doesn't need to repeat all 40 parameters. It does add helpful examples like coupon_rate, maturity, and spot_rates, though it also mentions face_value which does not appear in the schema, causing slight confusion.

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 performs bond and derivative valuation calculations with a specific list of supported indicators, such as duration, yield-to-maturity, and Z-spread. It also distinguishes this tool from market-data siblings by noting that no tickers or countries are needed and that parameters are provided directly.

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 gives useful context: it is for calculations using direct bond/derivative parameters rather than ticker-based lookups, and it lists available indicators. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this tool over sibling tools like valuation, rates, or options, nor does it give exclusions or alternatives.

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