preflight_put_credit_spread

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description reinforces that it is a side-effect-free estimation tool and adds that it 'Does NOT place an order.' It also explains the credit received nature. No contradictions exist, and the description adds 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?

The description is well-structured: a clear one-line purpose, a brief strategy explanation, a key behavioral note, and a bulleted list of parameters. It is concise with no unnecessary text. The critical information is front-loaded, and the format is easy to parse.

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?

All 7 parameters are described, with 4 required parameters clearly noted. The tool's read-only nature, credit computation, and order prevention are covered. An output schema exists (as per context signals), so the return value is handled externally. The description is complete for an agent to use the tool 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%, but the description compensates fully. It provides detailed explanations for each parameter in the Args section, including the role of sell_contract_osi (higher strike) and buy_contract_osi (lower strike), limit_price semantics (positive = credit received), time_in_force options (DAY or GTD), and conditional requirements for expiration_time. This adds substantial meaning beyond the raw 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 states 'Estimate costs for a Bull Put Spread (put credit spread) before placing it.' It clearly identifies the action (estimate), the resource (put credit spread), and the context (before placing). The title 'Preflight Put Credit Spread' aligns with the purpose, and the sibling set distinguishes it from other preflight and placement tools.

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 says 'Does NOT place an order,' guiding when not to use this tool. It explains the mechanics (sell higher-strike, buy lower-strike) and mentions receiving a net credit. While it does not explicitly compare to other preflight tools, the pair structure and type are clearly defined, making the usage context reasonably clear.

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