analyze_strangles

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, the nature of 'optimization' (e.g., modifies data?), or any side effects. With zero behavioral context, an AI agent cannot assess safety or impact.

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 short (4 words), which is concise but insufficient. It fails to elaborate on what 'optimization' entails or what the analysis covers. Conciseness is not an excuse for under-specification.

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 nested input schema and 0% parameter coverage, the description should provide more details. The tool has an output schema, but the description is too sparse to guide an agent effectively. Missing prerequisites, param formats, and behavioral notes reduce completeness.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description does not explain any parameter meanings or usage. The schema provides names and types but lacks context. For instance, 'min_oi' is ambiguous (open interest? order imbalance?). The description adds no value, leaving the agent to guess parameter semantics.

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 identifies the tool's scope: analyzing strangles, a specific options strategy, and mentions optimization. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like analyze_straddles and analyze_spreads. However, 'comprehensive' is vague and not further quantified.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not specify prerequisites, typical inputs, or expected scenarios. Sibling tools like analyze_spreads and analyze_straddles exist, but no differentiation is provided.

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