analyze_spreads

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as whether the tool is read-only, requires specific permissions, or has side effects. The description is too brief to add transparency.

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 extremely concise, consisting of a single sentence. While it is efficient, it sacrifices necessary detail for completeness. No wasted words, but could be expanded.

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 complexity of nested parameters and the presence of an output schema, the description is inadequate. It does not explain what the analysis produces, how to interpret results, or provide enough context for effective tool selection and 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 input schema has parameter descriptions (e.g., 'Base cryptocurrency', 'Minimum open interest', 'Spread types'), but the context indicates 0% schema description coverage, implying those descriptions are insufficient. The description does not elaborate on parameter usage or meaning, so it fails to compensate.

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's for vertical spread analysis, specifically call and put spreads, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like analyze_straddles and analyze_strangles. However, 'analysis' is vague and doesn't specify what the tool actually computes or returns.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The name implies it's for vertical spreads, but there is no explicit context or exclusion of other strategies.

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