calculate_bond_price

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It includes the formula and frequency mapping but lacks details on assumptions (e.g., clean vs dirty price, day count), error handling, or return format. The description is insufficient for a complete understanding.

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 (3 sentences) and front-loaded with purpose. Each sentence adds unique value: statement of what the tool does, the formula, and clarification of coupon_frequency values. No extraneous text.

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 complexity (financial calculation with 5 parameters) and that an output schema exists, the description is adequate but not thorough. It covers the core formula and frequency but omits assumptions, edge cases (e.g., zero-coupon bonds), and practical usage notes. Comparable to tools like calculate_present_value which similarly rely on schema for details.

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 should clarify parameter meanings. It explains coupon_frequency values (1=annual, 2=semi-annual, 4=quarterly) which adds value, but other parameters like face_value, ytm are only covered by the formula notation (C, r, FV) without explicit mapping. The schema names are self-explanatory, but the description helps marginally.

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 tool's function: 'Calculate bond price using DCF of coupon payments and face value.' It provides the formula and explains coupon_frequency values, distinguishing it from sibling tools like calculate_ytm or calculate_zero_coupon_bond.

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 implies usage for bond pricing but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like calculate_ytm or calculate_current_yield. There is no guidance on exclusions or prerequisites.

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