analyze_strategy

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

With no annotations, the description bears the full burden. It states the tool 'calculates' and 'returns' analysis, implying a read-only operation, but does not explicitly disclose any side effects, limitations, permissions, or edge-case behaviors. It provides a reasonable outline of what the tool does but lacks deeper behavioral context that could affect invocation (e.g., data freshness, required permissions, or handling of invalid inputs).

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 well-structured with a clear opening statement, a 'Use this tool when' list, an Args section, and a Returns section. It is concise without extraneous words, and every sentence contributes to understanding the tool's purpose, usage, and parameters.

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 tool with two simple parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core aspects: what it does, when to use it, parameter meanings, and the nature of returns. It could be more specific about what 'risk metrics' includes, but overall it gives an agent sufficient information to decide 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?

The schema provides only parameter names with no descriptions, and coverage is 0%. The description compensates by describing 'ticker' as 'Stock symbol' and providing a concrete format example for 'legs' ("BUY 1 C 150, SELL 1 C 155"). This adds meaningful semantic value beyond the schema, though the ticker description is minimal.

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's function with a specific verb and resource: 'Analyze a custom options strategy.' It lists concrete outputs (P&L profile, Greeks, probability of profit, risk metrics) and explicitly distinguishes the use case from siblings by focusing on 'custom strategy' analysis. The purpose is unambiguous and aligns with the tool name.

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 provides a clear 'when to use' list: 'Use this tool when the user asks about: Analyzing a specific trade, Strategy P&L profile, Greeks for a position.' This gives strong context for selection among siblings, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it misses the top score.

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