optimize_strategy

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It explains the optimization behavior (based on target criteria like credit, risk/reward, probability) but does not disclose whether the operation requires specific data, whether it is read-only, or what side effects might occur. The return value 'Optimized strategy parameters' is vague.

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 reasonably concise and well-structured with clear sections (description, use cases, args, returns). However, the first two sentences are redundant ('Find optimal strikes' and 'Optimizes strike selection'), which could be tightened.

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 is moderately complex with 3 parameters and no output schema. The description covers the main purpose and use cases but lacks detail on the return format (what exactly are 'optimized strategy parameters') and does not mention prerequisites or relationships with sibling tools. This leaves gaps for an agent to fully understand what the tool returns.

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 must compensate. It provides basic meanings for all parameters: ticker ('Stock symbol'), strategy_type ('Type of strategy'), target ('Optimization target (credit, risk_reward, probability)'). However, 'strategy_type' is not elaborated (no list of acceptable strategies), and target values are only examples, not exhaustive.

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 purpose: 'Find optimal strikes for a strategy type' and 'Optimizes strike selection based on target criteria like max credit, best risk/reward, or target probability.' It provides specific use case examples (best strikes, optimal iron condor strikes) that hint at differentiation from sibling tools, though it doesn't explicitly distinguish from similar tools like analyze_strategy or simulate_option_chain.

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 explicitly links the tool to user intents: 'Use this tool when the user asks about: Best strikes for a strategy, Optimal iron condor strikes, Maximizing credit or probability.' This gives clear context for when to use it, though it does not mention exclusions or alternatives.

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