Compute Spread Quote

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds value by explaining the sign convention (positive=net debit, negative=net credit) and that it surfaces NoAccess warnings per leg, which annotations do not cover.

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 three sentences, each adding distinct value: core function, result interpretation, and warning behavior. It is front-loaded and free of filler, making it highly concise and clear.

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?

The tool has 2 parameters and no output schema. The description explains the conceptual output and a behavioral warning, but it omits the purpose of accountKey and whether it is required. Given the complexity of multi-leg strategies, some additional context (e.g., constraints like min/max legs) would improve completeness.

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 0% and the description does not explain the parameters (legs array fields, accountKey). The description only mentions 'legs' broadly but omits details like uic, assetType, buySell, amount. This fails to compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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 specifies the tool's function: fetching live bid/ask for each leg of a multi-leg option strategy and computing worst-case, best-case, and mid net debit. This distinguishes it from siblings that may estimate or place orders.

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 implies usage for computing spread quotes but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like saxo_estimate_vertical_spread or saxo_generate_option_strategy_candidates. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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