Strategy Analyzer

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals a non-mutating operation. The description adds behavioral detail by specifying what the analysis computes (P&L, Greeks, probabilities, risk metrics) and the expected leg format. It does not cover error handling or data sources, but the added behavioral context goes beyond the annotation.

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 compact, front-loaded with the purpose, then structured into usage cases, args, and returns. Every sentence adds value; the example format is essential and the 'Use this tool' list is actionable. No redundant or filler text.

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?

The tool has few parameters and no output schema, but the description covers purpose, use cases, parameter format, and high-level return contents. It could mention output structure or limitations, yet for a strategy analyzer this is a solid, self-contained definition. It is slightly less complete than top-tier tools with explicit output schemas.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It does so by explaining 'ticker: Stock symbol' and providing a concrete leg format example ('BUY 1 C 150, SELL 1 C 155'). This is more informative than the raw schema, though it could be more explicit about expiration dates or option types.

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 'Analyze a custom options strategy' and enumerates specific outputs: 'full P&L profile, Greeks, probability of profit, and risk metrics.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like optimize_strategy or build_strategy by focusing on analysis rather than construction or optimization.

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?

Explicit usage guidance is provided: 'Use this tool when the user asks about: Analyzing a specific trade, Strategy P&L profile, Greeks for a position.' It does not mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the use cases are clear and contextually sufficient for most query routing.

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