get_strategies

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the tool selects an expiration, proposes strikes based on target delta and wing width, returns four legs and probability of profit. No side effects or destructive behaviors are mentioned, which is appropriate for a read-only analytical tool.

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 structured with a clear one-sentence purpose, a brief procedural paragraph, and an Args list. While it is longer than minimal, every part adds value, especially the parameter descriptions given zero schema coverage.

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 option strategies, the description covers the inputs, selection process, and output (four legs and probability of profit). An output schema exists, so return value details are not required. The description is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand and invoke the tool.

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%, but the description includes an Args section that explains each parameter in plain language, describing the role of symbol, target_dte, wing_width, and short_delta. This fully compensates for the missing schema descriptions.

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 explicitly states 'Build candidate iron condor setups for an underlying.' which clearly indicates the verb ('build') and resource ('iron condor setups'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_option_chain or get_market_overview that provide raw market data rather than a specific strategy.

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 explains how the tool selects parameters and returns an iron condor, implying usage for strategy generation. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when raw option chain data is needed) or provide any exclusions or prerequisites.

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