pmus_analyze_spread

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by emphasizing that execution is an optional simulation for a given size)Skip, clarifying that no live order is placed despite the trading-economic terms, and by detailing the analytical outputs returned.

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 dense but efficient, front-loading the core purpose and then listing specific, non-redundant breakdown elements. It is a long single sentence, but every item adds useful semantics; slight restructuring into a shorter introductory sentence plus details could improve scannability.

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 rich output schema, complete parameter descriptions, and thorough annotations, the description covers every significant capability an agent needs to decide if this tool is appropriate. It mentions fees, payoff, breakeven, ROI, ladder, depth, and optional simulation, with no critical usage context missing.

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 coverage is 100%, and each parameter already has a clear description, especially 'size' being an optional order size to simulate walking the book. The description reinforces the size-to-simulation relationship but adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, so 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 opens with 'Full spread + fee + payoff breakdown for one market,' naming a concrete resource and action. The itemized outputs (bid/ask/mid, spread, taker/maker economics, breakeven probabilities, ROI, ladder, depth, optional simulation) clearly distinguish it from simpler sibling tools like pmus_get_bbo or pmus_get_order_book.

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 makes it clear this is for a single-market, comprehensive analysis and implies it covers more than basic BBO or order-book tools. However, it never explicitly names alternatives such as pmus_line_ladder_check or says when not to use this tool, leaving the routing decision somewhat inferential.

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