options_build_symbol

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It only mentions the format for 'expiry' and 'call_or_put', but omits how the final symbol is assembled (e.g., ordering, formatting of strike price) or any constraints. The tool's output schema exists but the behavioral aspects of symbol construction are not explained.

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 a single sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose and two key format constraints. There is no wasteful filler, and the information provided is directly useful. However, it's slightly under-specified due to missing param details, preventing a 5.

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 simplicity of the tool and presence of an output schema, the description still omits critical behavior like the concatenation order or how the strike price is embedded. It does not mention any edge cases or conversion rules, making it incomplete for an agent to predict the exact output.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does clarify 'expiry' (YYMMDD) and 'call_or_put' (c/call or p/put), but provides no details for 'underlying_symbol' or 'strike_price'. These are self-explanatory by name, yet strike_price may have formatting nuances not covered.

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's purpose with a specific verb and resource: 'Build an option symbol.' This distinguishes it from the sibling 'options_parse_symbol' implicitly, though it doesn't explicitly contrast the two. The scope is clear enough for an agent to know what it does.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given the sibling 'options_parse_symbol' exists, the description could have noted that this is for constructing symbols while the sibling is for decomposing them. Without this, an agent may not know the best choice in context.

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