ib_pmcc_advisor

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose key output behaviors (assignment probability, P&L projections, roll candidates, comparison table) and the local TWS/IB Gateway requirement. However, it does not explicitly state whether the tool is read-only or may place trades, and it omits potential failure modes or authorization requirements.

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 front-loaded: a one-line purpose, followed by output highlights, a prerequisite, and a concise parameter list. There is no filler or redundant repetition of the schema; every sentence adds value.

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 is complete for the tool's complexity: all parameters are documented, outputs are enumerated, and important context (local gateway requirement) is provided. It lacks only minor details such as error conditions or market data subscription requirements, but these are not critical for basic tool selection and invocation.

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 input schema provides no descriptions (0% coverage), so the description's Args section is essential. It explains all five parameters: port with live/paper examples, account as optional, symbols as comma-separated filter, min_roll_dte with default, and price_mode with 'mid'/'last' semantics. This fully compensates for the schema gap.

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 'Analyze PMCC (diagonal call spread) positions and recommend roll actions,' which clearly identifies the tool's verb and resource. It further details the outputs (assignment probability, P&L projections, roll candidates) but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools such as spread_diagonal or ib_find_short_roll.

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 provides clear prerequisite context: 'Requires TWS or IB Gateway running locally.' It also explains optional filtering by symbols and account, which helps the agent understand when these options are relevant. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it.

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