Analyze Spreads

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure, and it says nothing beyond the bare verb 'analysis.' There is no mention of what data the analysis consumes, whether it is read-only, how long it takes, or any side effects. The description neither misleads nor informs, so it fails to carry that burden without being contradictory.

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?

Seven words with no filler, and the key scope ('vertical', 'call and put') is front-loaded. Every word earns its place, though it errs on the side of being a fragment rather than a complete sentence stating an action.

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 output schema covers return shape, but everything else an agent needs to invoke correctly is missing: no usage context among 21 siblings, no behavioral or side-effect information (with no annotations to fall back on), and no explanation of the three nested parameters. For a tool in a crowded analysis family, a 7-word description is inadequate.

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% at the top level, so the description must compensate; it adds only the phrase 'call and put spreads,' which loosely mirrors the spread_types default. The meanings of min_oi, base_coin, the params wrapper, and valid spread_types values are left entirely to terse property labels. Coverage is low and compensation is minimal.

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 names a concrete resource — vertical spreads of calls and puts — which partially differentiates it from siblings that analyze straddles, strangles, or portfolio strategies. However, the verb 'analysis' is generic: it never states what the analysis produces (metrics, signals, P&L, recommendations), so an agent knows the subject matter but not the actual function. This is directional but vague, not a tight verb+resource statement.

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?

Zero guidance on when to choose this tool. The description does not reference any sibling (analyze_straddles, analyze_strangles, get_skew_analysis, etc.), nor mention use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. With 21 overlapping sibling tools in the options-analysis space, an agent has no routing signal.

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