calc_npv

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'COMPUTE. Net Present Value.' and provides no details on how the calculation behaves, such as assumptions about cash flow timing, rate interpretation, or whether it is a read-only operation. This is completely inadequate.

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 short ('COMPUTE. Net Present Value.'), but this is under-specification rather than good conciseness. It omits essential context about parameters and usage, making it insufficiently informative despite being front-loaded.

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 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description provides no details about return values, parameter formats, or typical usage. It is completely incomplete for a tool with these characteristics.

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 the parameters. It does not explain that 'rate' is a discount rate, the expected format of 'cashflows' (e.g., array of numbers with negative outflows), or the role of 'currency.' The description adds no meaning 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 states 'Net Present Value,' which clearly identifies the tool's purpose as computing NPV. The verb 'COMPUTE' is generic but the resource is specific. It does not distinguish from sibling tools like calc_irr, which also compute financial metrics.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as calc_irr, calc_compound_growth, or other financial calculators. There is no mention of use cases, prerequisites, or scenarios where NPV is appropriate.

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