Every shape this server can price

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description doesn't need to restate that. The description adds that it provides plain-language explanations, which is useful but not behavioral. It doesn't describe return format or error handling, but given the simplicity and read-only nature, the annotation covers the core safety profile.

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 two sentences with no fluff. The first sentence states the resource and content, the second gives usage context. Everything earns its place and is front-loaded.

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?

For a parameterless read-only list tool with an output schema present, the description covers purpose and usage. It might mention that it returns a list of strategies, but that is likely defined in the output schema. The description is adequate for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema is empty and description cannot add parameter semantics. Baseline for 0-param tools is 4, and the description correctly focuses on the output and purpose rather than parameters.

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 lists available option structures, each with its bet and trade-off, in plain language. It distinguishes itself from sibling list tools (list_currencies, list_expiries) by focusing on strategy shapes and explicitly ties to price_structure via shape ID selection.

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?

It explicitly says to use it to pick a shape id for price_structure or to explain options to someone. This gives clear when-to-use context, though it does not mention alternative tools or exclusion criteria. Still, the guidance is direct and sufficient for most cases.

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