calculate_put_call_parity

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

No annotations are provided, but the description includes the exact formula (C - P = S - K×e^(-r×t)), making the calculation transparent. It does not disclose assumptions like European options, but given the absence of annotations, this is adequate.

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 extremely concise with three sentences, no redundant words. The key formula is front-loaded, and every sentence adds value.

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 moderate complexity and presence of an output schema, the description is complete enough. It covers the purpose, usage, and formula. Minor missing context about assumptions is acceptable.

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 0%, but the description adds meaning by explaining how to use the optional price parameters ('leave the other at -1') and provides the formula linking all parameters. This compensates for the missing schema descriptions.

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 'derive the fair call or put price, or detect arbitrage,' specifying the exact financial concept and outcomes. It distinguishes from siblings like calculate_option_payoff and calculate_black_scholes by focusing on 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 explicitly tells the agent to 'Provide whichever option price you know; leave the other at -1 to solve it,' providing clear usage instructions. However, it does not mention when not to use or suggest alternatives.

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