options_strategy-optimizer

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds beyond these by stating that the tool returns a ranked list with detailed outputs (legs, profit/loss, breakevens, etc.) and that it is paid-only. No contradictions with 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 very concise, with only a few sentences. It front-loads the purpose and return format, and includes a usage note. Every sentence is necessary and there is no wasted text.

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 has 8 parameters, no output schema, and annotations, the description covers the main aspects: purpose, required inputs, return contents, and a usage note. It does not explain the scoring criteria or how the ranking works, but overall it is fairly complete.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters well. The description mentions providing spot price, outlook, vol_view, T, sigma, r, but this adds minimal value beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 that the tool ranks top options strategies given market outlook and volatility view, and lists what it returns (P&L, breakevens, etc.). It is specific about the verb 'rank' and resource 'options strategies', but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'options_strategy' or 'options_spread-scan'.

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 includes 'Use when agents need to pick the best options strategy given a market outlook', which provides clear context. It also notes 'PAID ONLY — no free tier', giving a usage restriction. However, it does not provide alternatives 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.