derivatives_binomial-tree

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds behavioral context by stating the outputs ('Returns: option price, early exercise boundary, and tree node values'), which is not in the annotations. No contradictions with annotations.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. First sentence states purpose, second sentence provides usage and outputs. Front-loaded and 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?

Despite having no output schema, the description mentions the return values (price, early exercise boundary, tree node values). For a tool with 9 parameters and no nested objects, this is sufficient to use the tool without additional context. However, it could mention edge cases or limitations.

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 merely lists parameter names ('Provide spot, strike, time, rate, volatility, steps, and exercise style'), which adds no new meaning beyond the schema's existing descriptions.

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 explicitly states the tool does 'CRR binomial tree pricing for American and European options.' It uses a specific verb ('pricing') and resource ('American and European options'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'derivatives_asian-option' by naming the model (CRR) and option types.

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 provides clear when-to-use guidance: 'Use when pricing American or European options via the CRR binomial lattice.' It lists required inputs. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or suggest alternatives, which would have made it a 5.

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