get_covered_call_signal

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It lists the checks performed but does not disclose if the tool is read-only, requires specific permissions, or has side effects. The output schema exists, so return structure is handled.

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?

One sentence of 18 words effectively front-loads the purpose and lists key checks. No redundant information; every part serves a purpose.

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 the tool (composite signal with multiple checks) and the presence of an output schema, the description provides a good overview. It could be more complete by mentioning when to use this tool versus siblings, but it adequately covers the core functionality.

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 provides descriptions for all parameters, so schema coverage is high. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what is already in the schema, resulting in a baseline score.

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 evaluates a covered call entry signal with specific components (IV-RV spread, vol regime, term structure, skew check, and recommended OTM strike), distinguishing it from sibling tools that provide raw data or other analytics.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_iv_rv_spread or analyze_portfolio_greeks. The description implies it is for generating a trading signal, but does not state when it is appropriate or contraindicated.

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