analyze_derivatives

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

With readOnlyHint=true, the description adds substantial context: it computes at every timestep using Black-76, returns separate risk breakdowns, and shows how scenario analysis is chained. It discloses the computational scope and dependencies without contradicting annotations.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then method, outputs, and usage prerequisites. It is longer than minimal, but every sentence adds operational detail for a complex tool; no filler or redundancy.

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 description covers the tool's inputs (via flow job), computation, outputs, and a usage example. With an output schema present and 100% schema description coverage, it provides enough context for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by specifying the source of flow_job_id (generate_flow_paths or simulate_flow_scenario) and giving a concrete scenario example, which clarifies how the parameters relate to a workflow. Other parameters are already well-described in 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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Run options risk analysis on FLOW-generated paths for a mixed futures + options portfolio.' It details the Black-76 re-pricing, portfolio metrics, Greeks, and output breakdowns. It distinguishes from siblings like price_option and test_flow_risk by requiring a flow_job_id and positioning itself for portfolio-level analysis.

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?

It explicitly states when to use: after obtaining a flow_job_id from generate_flow_paths or simulate_flow_scenario, and provides a scenario-analysis workflow. It does not name negative alternatives (e.g., 'use price_option for single-option pricing'), but the prerequisite and scenario usage are clear.

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