Find Option Leg by Symbol/Expiry/Strike

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

Annotations indicate read, non-destructive, idempotent, open-world. Description adds details about preferring multi-leg-capable root and surfacing alternatives in warnings[], enhancing transparency beyond 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?

Front-loaded with purpose, followed by workflow compression, usage context, and disambiguation tip. Every sentence adds value; no redundancy.

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?

Fully addresses tool's helper nature with clear input semantics, behavioral expectations (preference logic, warnings), and usage context. Missing output schema is acceptable for a resolving tool that returns a Uic.

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, the description explains each parameter's role: symbol, expiry, strike, putCall as human-readable inputs for resolution, and exchangeId for disambiguation. Adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema.

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?

Clearly describes it as a convenience helper that resolves an option leg Uic from human-readable parameters, distinguishing its role in compressing a 4-step workflow. References sibling tools saxo_place_order and saxo_place_multileg_order for context.

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?

States explicit usage before order placement tools and advises passing exchangeId to disambiguate when multiple option roots match. Lacks explicit 'when not to use' but provides sufficient context.

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