Calculate the price of a 2-4 leg option package with exact decimal arithmetic, comparing native-package, synthetic-natural, and midpoint reference pricing for historical research.
Price a 2-4 leg option package with explicit native-package, synthetic-natural, and midpoint-reference provenance using exact decimal arithmetic.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| request | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does mention 'exact decimal arithmetic' and 'provenance', which are useful computational details, but it does not disclose whether the tool performs a read-only calculation, requires live quotes, has side effects, or how it handles missing or stale data.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. The main action and scope appear immediately, though the dense provenance phrase adds complexity without much clarity.
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 tool has a complex nested schema, no annotations, and no output schema, yet the description only covers leg count and arithmetic style. It omits the request wrapper, required fields, family semantics, and the meaning of the provenance modes, leaving the agent reliant on schema inspection for critical context.
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, but it only hints at '2-4 leg' and 'native-package'. It does not explain the required request object, the family enum, the structure of legs, or the meaning of fields like references, max_quote_age_ms, and max_temporal_skew_ms.
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 action ('Price'), the resource ('option package'), and the scope ('2-4 leg'), which distinguishes it from sibling backtest and simulation tools. However, the phrase 'explicit native-package, synthetic-natural, and midpoint-reference provenance' is jargon-heavy and may obscure the core purpose for an agent.
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 implies the tool is for pricing option packages, but it gives no explicit guidance on when to choose it over alternatives like tastytrade_prepare_spx_spread or tastytrade_simulate_trade. There are no when-not-to-use conditions or references to related tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.