option_greeks

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior, and it does provide useful context: computes IV from market_price, allows expiry OR dte, and supports volatility override. However, it omits details about the output format, what happens when both or neither time inputs are provided, and any model assumptions/limitations. This partial disclosure warrants a 3.

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 efficiently structured with a lead sentence, a clarifying note about IV, and a single-line-per-parameter list. It avoids unnecessary fluff, though the Args list is somewhat lengthy—still, each line earns its place given the schema lacks descriptions.

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?

The tool has 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, so the description bears a heavy burden. It covers inputs well and notes IV computation, but it does not explain the return structure or error/edge cases (e.g., missing both time inputs, conflicting inputs). Given the complexity, a 3 is fair.

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 no property descriptions (0% coverage), but the description's Args section thoroughly explains every parameter: spot, strike, option_type, expiry vs dte relationship, market_price for IV, volatility format, and rate default. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema, so a 5 is appropriate.

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 opens with a clear statement: 'Calculate option Greeks (delta, gamma, theta, vega) using Black-Scholes.' This is a specific verb+resource and distinguishes it from sibling tools like option_chain or spread_* by specifying the exact Greeks and the model. The addition of IV computation further clarifies its scope.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not reference any sibling tools or conditions that would favor this tool over option_chain or others beyond the intrinsic purpose. The only conditional language ('if provided') relates to an optional input, not tool selection.

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