spread_iron_condor

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

With no annotations, the description carries full disclosure burden. It only says 'Analyze' without revealing what the analysis produces (e.g., max profit/loss, breakevens, greeks), whether it uses market data, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a financial analysis tool.

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 a single defining sentence followed by a clean argument list with one-line meanings. Every element is useful and there is no wasted text.

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 a complex options strategy analysis with 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description offers no explanation of the analysis results, return format, or use case context. It is too minimal for an agent to know what to expect as output or how to validate the trade.

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 parameter descriptions in the Args section add meaning: symbol, expiry format, and strike order (lowest to highest) for the four strikes. This compensates for the bare schema, though it could include more detail like units or constraints.

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 uses a specific verb 'Analyze' with a clear resource 'iron condor' and even defines the structure ('sell strangle + buy protective wings'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like spread_strangle and spread_vertical.

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 analyzing iron condor spreads by naming the strategy and parameters, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. There is no guidance on comparing to similar spread tools.

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