Strategy Builder

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

The description adds useful behavioral context beyond readOnlyHint: it automatically selects strikes based on target delta, supports fractional widths, treats expiration as None for nearest monthly, and returns legs, Greeks, and expected P&L. No contradiction exists between 'Build' and readOnlyHint since this appears to be an in-memory computation.

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-organized with a summary, supported types, usage triggers, and Args/Returns sections. Some redundancy exists between the strategy-type list and the strategy_type parameter example, but overall the structure is clear and 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?

Given 5 parameters, no output schema, and no enums, the description provides enough context to invoke the tool: it identifies required params, optional behavior, strategy categories, and return content. It is mostly complete, though it could more explicitly state how 'optimal parameters' are derived when no target_delta is specified.

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 carries the full burden. It meaningfully describes all 5 parameters: ticker, strategy_type, expiration, width, and target_delta, including defaults, valid fractional widths, and the 'None' expiration behavior. This goes well beyond the raw schema titles.

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 uses a specific verb 'Build an options strategy' and lists supported strategy types, making it clear what the tool does. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like optimize_strategy or analyze_strategy, but the use-case list helps differentiate it.

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 gives explicit use triggers: 'Use this tool when the user asks about building a specific strategy', iron condor/credit spread requests, and strategy construction. It does not state when not to use it or name alternatives, so it stops short of full discrimination.

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