place_put_credit_spread

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

Description adds key behavioral disclosure: 'executes a real trade' and 'Receive a net credit'. Annotations are minimal (destructiveHint=false, readOnlyHint=false) but description warns of trade execution, adding context beyond annotations.

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?

Description is concise with a clear structure: purpose, warning, then args list. Every sentence adds value. Minor room for tighter phrasing but highly effective.

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?

Covers all 7 parameters with context, provides a warning and prerequisite, mentions net credit. Output schema exists but unnecessary to describe return values. Complete for an execution tool.

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 has 0% description coverage; the description compensates fully by explaining each parameter: sell_contract_osi (higher strike), buy_contract_osi (lower strike), quantity, limit_price (minimum net credit), time_in_force, expiration_time, account_id. This adds significant meaning.

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 Bull Put Spread, explains the mechanics (sell higher-strike put, buy lower-strike put, net credit), and distinguishes it from siblings like place_put_debit_spread and place_call_credit_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?

Explicitly recommends running preflight_put_credit_spread first, guiding when to use this execution tool versus a simulation. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use but the preflight suggestion provides clear context.

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