derivatives_lookback-option

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the pricing formula name but does not elaborate on other behavioral aspects like no side effects, auth needs, or rate limits. With good annotation coverage, a 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?

Three sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence acts as a clear title, the second provides usage guidance, and the third summarizes parameters and output. Efficient and front-loaded.

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?

Lacks detail on output format (e.g., single number vs object) and does not explain floating vs fixed strike usage nuances. With 10 parameters and no output schema, more context would be helpful for correct usage.

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 the schema fully documents parameters. The description lists some parameter categories but does not add meaning beyond what is already in the schema descriptions. Baseline 3 per rules.

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 clearly states the tool prices lookback options (floating/fixed strike) using Goldman-Sosin-Gatto formulas. The name and title reinforce this, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like derivatives_asian-option and derivatives_barrier-option.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use when pricing lookback options', which is clear. However, it does not mention when not to use it or provide alternatives among the many derivative pricing siblings, missing an opportunity to guide selection.

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