calculate_option_payoff

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only calculation but does not explicitly state that the tool has no side effects, requires no authentication, or any other behavioral traits.

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, front-loaded with the main purpose, and includes relevant examples. It could be more structured but is efficient and readable.

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 lack of annotations and schema descriptions, the description covers the essential use case but misses some parameter constraints (e.g., positive values). The existence of an output schema mitigates the need to explain return values.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description adds meaning by specifying allowed values for option_type ('call|put') and position ('long|short'). Other parameters (strike, premium, spot_at_expiry) are only implied in examples, not formally described.

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 calculates payoff, profit/loss, and breakeven for an option leg at expiry, with specific examples. It distinguishes itself from many sibling financial calculation tools by focusing on options.

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 clear examples of when to use the tool (e.g., P&L calculation, breakeven, max profit/loss). However, it does not mention when not to use it or alternatives like calculate_black_scholes or calculate_put_call_parity.

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