sell_option

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions the short-position effect but omits critical details such as margin requirements, risk, execution behavior, and settlement implications, especially since selling options carries substantial risk.

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?

Two concise sentences with the action front-loaded. Every word adds value, and the structure is highly scannable.

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?

For a high-stakes financial tool with no annotations, the description is under-specified. It fails to explain order type behavior, covering semantics, potential risks, or prerequisites, making it incomplete for safe invocation despite the output schema existing.

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 compensate. Saying 'Same params as buy_option' is not self-contained and provides no actual semantics for the 9 parameters, leaving the agent without sufficient information to fill them correctly.

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?

Specifically identifies the action as 'Sell/write an option' and clarifies the position effect ('opens a short if not covering'), clearly distinguishing it from buy_option and other siblings.

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?

Usage is implied as the inverse of buy_option, and the reference to buy_option's parameters provides some guidance, but there is no explicit statement on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it.

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