fixed-income_bond

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

The description adds value beyond annotations by listing specific return values (price, duration, convexity, accrued interest). Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and the description aligns with no side effects claimed.

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 two sentences plus a list of outputs—no wasted words. Key information is front-loaded: purpose, usage, and output summary.

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?

While the description lists outputs and hints at input flexibility ('yield or price'), it misaligns with the schema (which only has ytm). This inconsistency reduces completeness. No output schema exists, so description should be precise; it is not fully accurate.

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 already documents parameters. The description only slightly adds context by mentioning 'yield or price', but this is inconsistent with the schema (which has no price parameter). No extra semantic depth beyond 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 description clearly states the tool computes bond price, duration, convexity, and DV01, with explicit outputs listed. It distinguishes itself from siblings like fixed-income_amortization and fi_yield-curve-interpolate.

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 usage context: 'Use when pricing a bond or computing yield, duration, and convexity.' It lists required inputs but does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention when not to use.

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