analyze_basic_strategies

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does add useful context by specifying that the analysis uses executable quotes and European Black-Scholes estimates, implying a read-only estimation nature. However, it does not disclose limitations, what 'legacy' means, or any other behavioral traits such as data-source assumptions or scope constraints.

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, tightly written sentence that communicates the core action and method without filler. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and wastes no words.

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 input schema and output schema cover parameter details and return structure, so the description does not need to explain those. However, lack of usage guidance and limited behavioral disclosure leave the description only minimally complete for an agent deciding when and how to invoke it confidently.

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 schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-level meaning beyond the schema; it only frames the overall pricing/analysis methodology. No compensation is needed, but no extra value is provided either.

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 states a clear verb ('Analyze') and a specific resource ('one legacy options strategy'), and adds method context ('executable quotes and European Black-Scholes estimates'). However, 'legacy' is not explained, and with no sibling tools listed there is no explicit differentiation from alternatives.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The description only implies that the tool is for analyzing an options strategy, but it does not state conditions or compare to other possible approaches.

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