finance.forward_price

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

Annotations already establish that this is a safe, idempotent, closed-world read. The description adds useful behavioral detail beyond annotations: the exact pricing convention (continuous compounding), treatment of income_yield, input validity constraints, and output precision.

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 purpose and formula are front-loaded, followed by compact input constraints and a key compounding caveat. Every sentence adds information without repetition.

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 formula-based financial calculator with an output schema and safety annotations, the description is nearly complete: it covers the pricing formula, input conventions, and output precision. It could be stronger by explicitly distinguishing forward pricing from futures pricing, but nothing essential is missing.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It explains that spot must be positive, time_to_expiry must be greater than zero in years, all inputs are Decimal strings, income_yield defaults to 0 and represents dividend or coupon yield, and the risk-free rate must be in continuous-compounding terms.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('무차익 선도가격을 계산한다') and gives the exact formula, so the purpose is unambiguous. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the nearby sibling finance.futures_price, which keeps it from a 5.

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 formula and the note about converting discrete compounding rates imply when this tool is appropriate, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or comparison against alternatives like finance.futures_price or finance.black_scholes.

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