Estimate Vertical Spread Risk

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. Description adds context about the option multiplier (100 for US equities) and debit sign convention, but does not mention behavior for invalid parameters or the role of assetType.

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?

Single sentence with no filler; front-loaded with 'Pure math' to convey core nature, and every part adds value.

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?

Covers key outputs (max loss, max gain, breakeven) and important details (multiplier, debit sign), but misses edge-case behaviors (e.g., invalid strike ordering) and the purpose of assetType.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, description compensates by explaining side enum, debit sign, and multiplier, but fails to explain the optional assetType parameter and ordering constraints between strikes.

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?

Description clearly states 'Pure math' and specifies the tool computes max loss, max gain, and breakeven for vertical spreads, distinguishing it from sibling tools like saxo_compute_spread_quote (for quoting) or saxo_generate_option_strategy_candidates (strategy generation).

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?

Description implies use for pre-trade estimation but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus others, nor does it provide exclusion criteria or alternatives. Context of 'pure math' suggests it does not use live market data, but no direct guidance.

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