calculate_black_scholes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It includes that volatility is annualized in percent, but does not disclose assumptions like no dividends or early exercise, nor does it specify the output structure beyond delta and price.

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 concise with two sentences and an additional line for volatility. It is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary words, earning its place.

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?

Despite the presence of an output schema, the description omits key assumptions (e.g., no dividends, European style) and does not elaborate on half of the parameters. This leaves agents without enough context to use the tool confidently.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description only explains the volatility parameter (annualized percent). Other parameters like spot, strike, years, annual_rate, and option_type lack any semantic explanation, requiring inference from titles.

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 it calculates the theoretical European option price (Black-Scholes) and delta, with specific use cases like fair option premium and implied pricing. It distinguishes itself from siblings such as calculate_option_payoff and calculate_put_call_parity.

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?

The description provides explicit use cases ('what is a fair option premium', option valuation, implied pricing) but does not mention when to avoid using this tool or differentiate from siblings like calculate_option_payoff.

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