price_yoy_inflation_swap

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden and does add real context: the market must carry a YoY inflation index and YoYInflation curve, fixings are REQUIRED, and fixed/YoY legs share the preset schedule. However it is silent on permissions, error behavior, and what the pricing result contains (though an output schema exists).

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose and endpoint, and formatted with a clear Args section. The market_data_source block is verbose and repetitive, while other equally complex parameters get no prose at all, so the space allocation is unbalanced.

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 21-parameter, 9-required tool with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description explains only a handful of inputs and omits key concepts (market object shape, preset selection, curve naming, additional_trades semantics). Output return values are covered by the output schema, but the input side is substantially under-specified.

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 21 parameters, so the description must compensate, and it does so for market_data_source (a full provenance enum explanation) and for spread/fixings/frequency. But the majority of parameters (market, preset, curve ids, additional_trades, calendar_overrides, schedule_overrides, include_flows, request_id) remain unexplained in both schema and description.

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 a year-on-year inflation swap') plus the underlying endpoint, and cross-references the sibling price_zc_inflation_swap to signal the family it belongs to. It stops short of an explicit differentiator against price_yoy_inflation_cap_floor, so sibling discrimination is only partial.

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 explicit when-to-use vs alternatives compared with price_zc_inflation_swap or price_yoy_inflation_cap_floor. It does give a strong negative rule within the market_data_source text ('If you would have to invent numbers, do not call this tool: ask the user'), which is genuine usage guidance but scoped to one argument rather than the tool as a whole.

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