greeks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses useful behavior by naming the Black-Scholes model and explaining that market_price causes IV to be re-solved instead of using the iv argument, but it omits assumptions such as risk-free rate/dividends and does not describe what greeks are returned.

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 front-loaded with the tool's purpose and then uses a compact Args list for parameter semantics. Every line contributes directly to invocation or interpretation.

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?

The description is sufficient to select and call the tool with correct parameter meanings, but it lacks return-value details and model assumptions. With no output schema and no annotations, more context about the returned greeks and calculation assumptions would improve completeness.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it documents spot, strike, calendar days to expiry, annualized IV as a decimal, call/put right, and the market_price override behavior. This adds substantial meaning beyond the schema's bare titles.

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 states a specific calculation and resource: "Black-Scholes greeks for one option." It is clear what the tool computes, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools such as option_chain or analyze_position.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It explains parameters but does not state usage contexts, exclusions, or when a sibling tool would be more appropriate.

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