Analyze Strangles

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether this is a read-only analysis, whether optimization mutates anything, what filters apply, or what side effects or computational characteristics to expect.

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 a single concise sentence and is front-loaded with the strategy name. 'Comprehensive' is mild fluff, but there is no redundancy or excessive length.

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 lack of annotations, the minimal description, and the large set of sibling analysis tools, this definition is incomplete. The presence of an output schema helps with return values, but an agent still lacks guidance on invocation context, parameter behavior, and tool selection.

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 description adds no meaning to the input schema. Schema coverage is 0%, and while the nested schema provides some labels like 'Minimum open interest' and 'Base cryptocurrency', the description does not clarify how these parameters relate to optimization or what valid spread_types are.

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 identifies strangles as the subject and analysis with optimization as the action, but 'comprehensive' and 'optimization' are vague. It does not clearly specify what the analysis produces or how it differs from sibling tools beyond the strategy name.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus analyze_straddles, analyze_spreads, or other analysis tools. The term 'comprehensive' implies broad applicability but no explicit context, exclusions, or alternative recommendations are provided.

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