preflight_multileg_order

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, indicating a safe, read-only operation. The description reinforces that it only estimates costs and does not place an order, which is consistent but adds limited new behavioral context. No additional disclosures about rate limits, authentication, or edge cases are provided, so the description meets the baseline but does not go beyond.

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 well-structured with a clear initial summary, an explicit note about order placement, and an 'Args' section with examples. It is moderately long but every section adds value. Could be slightly optimized by removing redundant 'Example:' label, but overall efficient.

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 tool complexity (multi-leg options with nested objects), annotations (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, openWorldHint), and presence of output schema, the description adequately covers input requirements, constraints (like required fields for legs), and an example. It explains the purpose, parameters, and behavior without needing to describe return values. It is complete enough for an agent to understand and invoke correctly.

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 carries full burden for parameter meaning. It adds detailed semantics for all parameters, especially the 'legs' array with a multi-line example showing required fields and optional ones. The descriptions of 'expiration_time' in ISO 8601 and 'account_id' as optional are valuable. This goes well beyond the bare schema.

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 it estimates costs for a multi-leg options strategy trade before placing it, explicitly distinguishing it from order placement tools like place_multileg_order. The verb 'estimate costs' and resource 'multi-leg order' are specific, and it differentiates from siblings such as preflight_order (likely single-leg) and place_multileg_order.

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?

The description explicitly states 'Does NOT place an order', which is a clear when-not. It provides detailed parameter guidance and an example for legs. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this general preflight tool versus specific spread preflight siblings (e.g., preflight_call_credit_spread), nor does it state prerequisites or alternatives beyond the negation.

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