options_implied-vol

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

The description provides behavioral details beyond annotations: it specifies the Newton-Raphson iteration method, convergence in 5-8 iterations, and the return values (implied volatility, convergence info, Greeks). Annotations only indicate read-only and idempotent hints; the description adds significant operational context.

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 extremely concise: three sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the tool's identity ('Newton-Raphson implied volatility solver') and then efficiently covers when to use, inputs, and outputs.

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?

Given the absence of an output schema, the description adequately covers return values (implied volatility, convergence info, Greeks). It could be improved by mentioning error conditions or precision, but it is sufficiently complete for a finance solver tool.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description lists the key parameters (spot, strike, time, etc.) but does not add new semantic meaning beyond the schema. It summarizes rather than enhances parameter understanding.

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 it is a 'Newton-Raphson implied volatility solver' that backs out implied volatility from market price. This purpose is distinct from sibling tools like options_price, which likely compute forward prices. The verb 'solver' and resource 'implied volatility' are specific and unambiguous.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use when you know the market price of an option and need to back out the implied volatility.' This provides clear context, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it.

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