Generate Option Strategy Candidates

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it confirms being read-only (consistent with annotations), details return contents, and explicitly lists omitted actions. This is sufficient given the strong annotation coverage.

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?

Two sentences, each front-loaded with core information: first sentence states purpose, second lists returns and exclusions. No wasted words, highly efficient.

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?

With 21 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, the description is far too high-level. It does not explain how to use required or key optional parameters, nor what the output structure looks like. Critical missing context for correct invocation.

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 description provides no detail on the 21 parameters, and the schema has 0% description coverage. Parameters like 'accountKey', 'optionRootId', 'minDte', etc. are left unexplained, forcing reliance on names alone. The description must compensate but fails entirely.

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 is a 'Read-only option candidate generator for explicit caller-provided strategies' and lists what it returns (structures, legs, pricing, Greeks, factor context). It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly stating what it does not do (choose playbook, precheck, 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 specifies that strategies must be explicitly provided by the caller and that the tool does not select a playbook or execute orders, guiding usage. However, it lacks explicit references to alternative tools like saxo_precheck_order or saxo_place_order for when those actions are needed.

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