Run exact-leg historical simulations for SPX defined-risk spreads to test strategy performance and obtain stable regression results for data-driven options research.
Run exact-leg historical simulation for a normalized SPX defined-risk spread and return a stable regression result contract.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| request | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states it is a simulation and returns a contract, but does not disclose whether it is read-only, any side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or what happens to data. The term 'stable' is vague and does not explain behavioral traits beyond the basic action.
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 no filler. It front-loads the action and output. However, it is extremely short given the complexity of the tool, but conciseness is high because every word is purposeful.
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 complex nested 'request' parameter with many required fields, and no annotations or output schema, the description is completely inadequate. An agent cannot know what to put in the request, what the contract contains, or any constraints. It is missing almost all contextual information needed to call the tool correctly.
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%, so the description must explain the parameters. It mentions none of the parameters, including the required 'request' object and its fields like 'family', 'legs', 'entry_at', etc. The description adds no semantic meaning to the schema.
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?
States a specific verb 'Run' and a precise object: 'exact-leg historical simulation for a normalized SPX defined-risk spread'. Also specifies the return: 'stable regression result contract'. This is distinct from sibling tools like tastytrade_simulate_trade and tastytrade_create_spx_spread_backtest by mentioning 'exact-leg' and 'normalized'.
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. Does not mention scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. Sibling tools like tastytrade_simulate_trade and tastytrade_create_spx_spread_backtest are not referenced, leaving the agent to infer selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.