Hedge Recommendations

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint: true, and the description adds the non-obvious behavior that recommendations are 'share-equivalent, not beta-weighted.' It also discloses that option Greeks must be passed from get_options_chain first. No contradictions; the description enriches the annotation without redundancy.

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 into clear sections with front-loaded purpose. The example JSON is verbose but necessary given the lack of schema descriptions. No wasted words, though the use-case bullets could be seen as slightly redundant with the first sentence.

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 read-only recommendation tool with no output schema, the description covers behavior, dependency on get_options_chain, parameters, and return value. It could add edge-case behavior (e.g., what if a position is invalid) but is generally complete for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 fully compensates via an Args section containing a realistic JSON example, clarification that plain text works for stock-only portfolios, defaults for hedge_ticker and target_delta, and a cross-tool dependency note. This goes far beyond the bare 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 opens with 'Get delta-hedge recommendations for a portfolio' and details the computation ('Computes net portfolio delta and suggests a stock hedge plus an option-based alternative'). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_options_chain or get_portfolio_greeks by focusing on hedge recommendations.

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?

A dedicated 'Use this tool when' section lists three specific intents (hedging, delta-neutrality, protective puts) and references get_options_chain as a prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly name sibling tools as alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls just short of a 5.

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