option_credit_spread

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

Beyond stating it places an order, the description does not disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, order type (limit vs market), validation, or possible responses. No annotations are present to supplement.

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 concise with one sentence for purpose followed by a parameter list. It is efficiently structured, though the 'Args:' label is slightly informal. No extraneous content.

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 complexity of a trading order and the presence of an output schema, the description omits critical context such as error handling, margin requirements, order lifecycles, or when this spread type is appropriate. It is insufficient for a safe trading operation.

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 comprehensive meaning to all four parameters, explaining short_instrument_id as the leg to sell, long_instrument_id as the leg to buy, quantity as number of spreads, and credit_price as net credit received. This fully compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 places a credit spread order, specifying it involves selling a short option and buying a long option. This verb+resource description distinguishes it from sibling tools like option_debit_spread.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as option_debit_spread or other order types. There is no mention of prerequisites, market conditions, or when not to use.

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