spread_diagonal

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states the tool 'analyzes' but does not describe what the output contains, whether it calculates profit/loss, Greeks, or other metrics, or any side effects. The inclusion of PMCC adds context but not behavioral transparency.

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 concise, with a clear introductory sentence followed by a structured argument list. Every sentence is purposeful with no filler.

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 moderately complex options analysis tool with no output schema or annotations, the description is incomplete. It lacks details about what the analysis returns (e.g., profit/loss scenarios, Greeks, breakeven points), which would be essential for an agent to invoke it correctly and interpret results.

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 coverage, the description compensates by listing all six parameters with brief explanations. It adds valuable details like option_type being 'call' or 'put' and date format YYYY-MM-DD. However, it does not clarify the relationship between long/short legs beyond their names.

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 analyzes diagonal spreads with different expiries and strikes, and explicitly mentions Poor Man's Covered Call/Put analysis. This distinguishes it from sibling spread tools like spread_vertical or spread_strangle.

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 implies usage for diagonal spreads and PMCC analysis, giving clear context for when to select this tool. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or contrast with alternatives, but the mention of specific spread types provides adequate situational guidance.

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