calculate_implied_volatility

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It only states the basic operation without disclosing any behavioral traits such as model assumptions, accuracy, or potential errors. This is insufficient for a financial calculation tool.

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 very concise (one sentence) but at the expense of essential information. For a tool with 6 parameters, this under-specification is not appropriately economical.

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 complexity of implied volatility calculation, the description lacks critical context: no mention of the model (e.g., Black-Scholes), no output schema, and no explanation of parameter constraints or edge cases. It is severely incomplete.

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 schema has 0% description coverage for 6 required parameters. The description only mentions 'option price' but does not explain the meaning of parameters like 'right', 'expiry', or 'underlying_price'. It adds no value beyond the parameter names.

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 verb 'calculate' and the resource 'implied volatility from option price', distinguishing it from the sibling 'calculate_option_price' which performs the inverse. However, it lacks scope details such as the pricing model used.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not explicitly contrast with 'calculate_option_price' or mention prerequisites like market data availability.

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