build_strategy

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that strikes are 'automatically selected based on target delta or other criteria' and states the return format (legs, Greeks, expected P&L), making the tool's behavior clear. It does not address edge cases or potential side effects, but as a non-destructive strategy builder, this is adequate.

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 purpose statement, supported types, usage guidance, and parameter descriptions. It is slightly redundant (strategy types listed twice) but remains focused and information-dense.

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 no output schema, the description adequately explains return values and parameter options. It covers all inputs and the high-level behavior, making it sufficient for an agent to select and invoke correctly, though it could include more detail on strategy-specific constraints.

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 has no property descriptions (0% coverage), but the description compensates fully by explaining each parameter: ticker, strategy_type, expiration (None for nearest monthly), width (fractional widths like 2.5), and target_delta with defaults. This provides valuable meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 'Build an options strategy with optimal parameters' and lists supported strategy types (iron_condor, credit_spread, etc.), distinguishing it from sibling tools like analyze_strategy or optimize_strategy by its construction focus.

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 includes an explicit 'Use this tool when' section covering building specific strategies and strategy construction, which informs when to select this tool. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives like analyze_strategy, so it earns a 4 rather than 5.

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