place_call_debit_spread

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

Annotations indicate non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, open world. The description adds critical context: 'executes a real trade', which goes beyond the annotations by alerting about real financial risk. No contradictions.

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 (under 100 words), uses bullet points for args, and front-loads the purpose. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is clear.

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 (7 parameters, real trade execution) and that output schema exists, the description covers behavior, all parameters, and critical usage warnings. No gaps were identified.

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%, so the description must explain parameters. It explains each parameter's role (e.g., sell_contract_osi: call to sell, higher strike; quantity: number of spreads) and provides defaults for time_in_force and expiration_time, effectively compensating for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 identifies the tool as placing a Bull Call Spread, specifying the action (buy lower strike, sell higher strike) and distinguishing it from credit spreads. The title also reinforces this.

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 warns that this executes a real trade and explicitly suggests using preflight_call_debit_spread first for testing, providing clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance. Sibling tools are listed for context.

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