Strike Optimizer

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes that the operation is read-only. The description adds that it 'optimizes' based on criteria, but does not go beyond that to explain computational behavior or any special constraints. It is not contradictory, but it adds minimal additional behavioral context 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 and well-organized. It leads with a clear one-line purpose, followed by usage examples, then an Args section, and a brief Returns statement. Every sentence adds value, and the structure makes it easy to scan.

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 description gives sufficient context for basic use (when to use, what params mean) but lacks detail on output structure (what 'Optimized strategy parameters' includes) and does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an option chain). Given no output schema and moderate complexity, a bit more detail on returns or constraints would be beneficial.

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 description provides a dedicated 'Args' section explaining each parameter: 'ticker: Stock symbol', 'strategy_type: Type of strategy', and 'target: Optimization target (credit, risk_reward, probability)'. Since the input schema lacks descriptions, this fills a critical gap and gives the agent meaningful guidance on parameter semantics.

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 verb ('find'), the object ('optimal strikes'), and the scope ('for a strategy type'). It provides concrete examples like 'optimal iron condor strikes' and 'maximizing credit or probability', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_options_chain or analyze_strategy that do not perform 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?

The description explicitly lists use cases (e.g., 'User asks about best strikes for a strategy'), which helps the agent decide when to invoke this tool. However, it doesn't contrast with alternatives like analyze_strategy or build_strategy, nor does it mention conditions where this tool is not appropriate, leaving some ambiguity.

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