finance.option_payoff

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description adds real behavioral detail: output is rounded to 8 decimal places, the result is maturity intrinsic value and not premium, and barrier inputs are mandatory for barrier types. It does not discuss edge cases (e.g. path shorter than expected) or averaging behavior particulars, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

A single dense paragraph that front-loads the core purpose and then layers the option-type rules and caveats. Every clause carries information; nothing is repeated from the schema or title.

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?

Output schema exists, so return formatting need not be explained, and the description covers type dispatch and barrier prerequisites well. The notable gap is that put/call direction (is_call) is never mentioned, which an agent would need to invoke 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?

With 0% schema description coverage the description must carry parameter meaning, and it does explain option_type values, spot_path semantics (list of price strings; last value only for vanilla/digital), and the barrier/barrier_type dependency. However, two parameters are left unexplained: is_call (put/call direction, defaulting to true) and strike (a string), and digital_cash is only implied by '현금 지급'.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('옵션의 만기 payoff 를 계산한다') and enumerates the supported option types (vanilla, digital, asian, barrier with its four sub-types), so an agent knows exactly what is computed. The closing clause ('만기 가치일 뿐 프리미엄이 아니다') separates it from pricing siblings like finance.black_scholes.

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 clear context for each option_type, including which types use only the last path value and which require barrier/barrier_type. It never names an alternative tool (e.g. black_scholes) or an explicit when-not condition, so a 4 rather than a 5.

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