derivatives_barrier-option

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds that it uses analytical formulas and returns price plus adjustment factors. This adds some behavioral context but does not delve into assumptions, limitations, or error conditions. Given annotations cover safety, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 three sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads purpose, then usage guidance, then return values. Every sentence earns its place.

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 computational tool without output schema, the description lists return values (price, vanilla equivalent, adjustment factors). It covers inputs and outputs adequately for an agent to understand usage. Could be improved by noting the analytical formulas' assumptions, but not necessary for minimal completeness.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description mentions 'spot, strike, barrier level, barrier type, and standard option parameters,' which maps to parameters but adds no new detail 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 tool explicitly states it is for 'pricing barrier options using analytical formulas,' specifying the verb and resource clearly. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'derivatives_asian-option' or 'derivatives_lookback-option' by focusing on barrier options.

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 advises 'Use when pricing knock-in or knock-out barrier options,' providing clear context. It does not explicitly list when not to use or suggest alternatives, but the specificity of barrier options compared to sibling tools is sufficient.

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