calculate_greeks

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It only mentions the Black-Scholes model and T's unit. Missing are behavioral traits such as whether it uses current market data, assumptions (log-normal returns), or any side effects. The description is too sparse to inform the agent about operational behavior.

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 concise—two sentences with no redundancy. It front-loads the key action and lists the Greeks. However, it could be slightly expanded for clarity without losing conciseness.

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 lack of output schema and annotations, the description should cover inputs and outputs. It lists the Greeks but doesn't describe the return format (e.g., JSON with Greek values). The 6 parameters are poorly explained. The description is incomplete for an agent to use confidently.

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 explain parameters. It only clarifies T (time in years). S, K, r, sigma, and option_type remain unexplained. Defaults for r and sigma are in the schema but not described. The description adds minimal value beyond the 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 calculates option Greeks (Delta, Gamma, Theta, Vega, Rho) using Black-Scholes. The verb 'calculate' and the specific resource 'option Greeks' make the purpose unambiguous. Among sibling tools, this is distinct from price or IV calculators, though not explicitly contrasted.

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 use when Greeks are needed, but provides no guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives like 'calculate_option_price' or 'calculate_iv'. No exclusions or context for selection are given, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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