price_ois_swap

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that the overnight-leg parameters default to the preset's values (including concrete preset examples like payment lag 2 for USD_SOFR_OIS) and warns against inventing market data, but says nothing about auth, rate limits, or error behavior. Since an output schema exists, return values need not be explained.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded and the Args block is scannable, but the repeated 'as in price_vanilla_swap' cross-reference saps self-containedness and forces the agent to consult another tool definition to resolve most parameters.

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?

For a 26-parameter tool with nested objects, the description covers roughly half the surface and delegates the rest to a sibling. The output schema handles return values, and the market_data_source guidance is thorough, but the unexplained parameters and heavy reliance on price_vanilla_swap leave notable gaps.

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% across 26 parameters, so the description must compensate. It does add real meaning for market_data_source, preset, and the overnight-leg parameters, but punts ten-plus parameters (market, swap_type, notional, curves, overrides, etc.) to 'as in price_vanilla_swap' and never mentions calendar_overrides or request_id at all.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Price an OIS (fixed vs compounded overnight) swap') plus the endpoint. The parenthetical definition of an OIS clearly separates it from sibling pricing tools such as price_vanilla_swap and price_fra.

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?

Gives an explicit when-not ('If you would have to invent numbers, do not call this tool: ask the user for the data') and enumerates the valid market_data_source values, which is strong routing guidance. However, it never explicitly contrasts this tool's purpose against price_vanilla_swap beyond deferring parameter docs to it.

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