Screen Option Strategy Factors

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

The description fully aligns with annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint) and adds valuable detail about returned data (candidate structures, liquidity, chart, IV/Greeks, optional news, sizing context). It explicitly states 'without verdicts or confidence labels,' which is critical behavioral info beyond annotations. No contradictions.

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 with two clauses, making it concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. It avoids fluff but could be more structured with separate sentences for returns and constraints. Still, it earns its place without waste.

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 tool's complexity (34 parameters, nested objects, no output schema), the description is insufficient. It lists what is returned but lacks detail on the structure of candidates, chart, IV/Greeks, or sizing. The absence of output schema and low schema coverage make the description the primary source, which falls short.

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 34 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the description provides almost no parameter semantics. It only hints at 'symbols or Saxo market movers,' which vaguely references the symbols and underlyingUniverse parameters. The extensive parameter list with enums, min/max constraints, and nested objects demands more explanation than given.

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 it is a read-only factor screener for explicit option strategies, distinguishing it from sibling tools like saxo_generate_option_strategy_candidates and saxo_screen_stock_factors. It specifies the scope (across symbols or Saxo market movers) and what it returns (candidate structures, liquidity, etc.), making the purpose highly specific and unambiguous.

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 exploratory screening without verdicts, and the read-only annotation reinforces that. It differentiates from siblings by focusing on factors rather than generation or stock screening. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use instructions or alternatives, leaving some ambiguity.

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