get_option_strategy_analysis

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions the analysis includes bid/ask, P&L, max profit/loss, and breakeven, but does not disclose data freshness, performance characteristics, or any side effects. For a read-only analysis tool, this is adequate but not comprehensive.

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: two sentences plus a parenthetical Chinese translation. The most important guidance (preferred source, not summing) is front-loaded. Every sentence adds value without unnecessary words.

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 tool has only one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the key aspects: what it does, how to structure the input, and how it differs from alternative approaches. It lacks details on return format or edge cases, but overall it is complete enough for an agent to use 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 input schema provides only a generic array type for 'legs' with no description (0% coverage). The description adds the crucial structure: {code, action: BUY|SELL, quantity}. This significantly enhances understanding beyond the schema, though it does not specify format constraints beyond the action enum.

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 performs combo option bid/ask and P&L analysis, including specific outputs like max profit/loss and breakeven. The Chinese translation reinforces the purpose. It differentiates from summing single-leg snapshots by explicitly advising against that method.

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 states 'PREFERRED source for combo bid/ask; do NOT sum single-leg snapshots', giving clear when-to-use guidance and a contraindication. It could be improved by naming a specific alternative tool, but the contrast with 'summing snapshots' is sufficient.

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