price_option

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

With readOnlyHint already conveying safety, the description adds valuable behavioral context: it details outputs (price, per-contract value, Greeks), supported futures tickers, and the optional Esscher fair-value computation. It does not unnecessarily restate the annotation and goes beyond basic safety disclosure.

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 three succinct sentences: the first states the core function and model, the second lists outputs and supported tickers, the third gives usage guidance. Every sentence adds value; 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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It explains the model, key outputs, supported tickers, the optional flow_job_id behavior, and how it differs from analyze_derivatives. It does not explain error conditions or edge cases, but this is not critical for a read-only pricing tool with thorough schema annotations.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context for flow_job_id (Esscher estimate) but this is already in the schema. It provides example tickers but does not introduce new parameter semantics beyond what the schema already documents.

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 function: 'Price a single option on a futures contract using the Black-76 model.' It uses a specific verb ('price') and resource ('single option on a futures contract'), and distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly naming analyze_derivatives for full portfolio risk.

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?

Explicit usage guidance is provided: 'Use this for quick pricing checks; use analyze_derivatives for full portfolio risk.' It also explains the optional flow_job_id condition, clarifying when to use the Esscher enhancement.

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