Option Greeks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond those annotations by specifying the Black-Scholes-Merton model and that prices are theoretical, which is important for interpreting results. It does not cover auth, rate limits, or pagination, but the output schema exists to cover return structure.

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 definition is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant clauses. It is appropriately concise for a one-line description, though its brevity for a 10-parameter computation tool leaves it structurally thin.

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?

The output schema and annotations cover return values and safety behavior, but the description is not complete enough for an agent to invoke a 10-parameter tool with 0% schema description coverage. It names only the general calculation model and expiry scope, leaving required and optional parameters largely undocumented.

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% across 10 parameters, so the description must compensate and does not. It mentions only 'expiry' obliquely and provides no meaning for required inputs like symbol and risk_free_rate, nor for optional parameters such as spot_override, dividend_yield, option_type, strike filters, open-interest filtering, or limit_per_side.

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: 'Return Black-Scholes-Merton theoretical prices and greeks for one expiry.' It distinguishes the output type from generic option-chain siblings, though it does not explicitly name an alternative tool. Clear enough for an agent to know it computes per-expiry theoretical values.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use conditions, and no named alternatives. The phrase 'for one expiry' implies the tool is expiry-scoped, but the agent is left to infer this from context rather than from stated guidelines.

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