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

With readOnlyHint=true already set, the description adds meaningful behavioral context by explaining the computation basis (effective OI, settled + intraday simulator delta) and its simulation-aware nature. It also notes the tool is the live variant of a potentially slower endpoint, giving the agent a sense of data freshness and methodology.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core information (what the tool returns), then efficiently explains the data basis and relative freshness. No redundant or filler text is present.

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?

Given the absence of an output schema, the description does a good job outlining the key metrics returned, but it could be slightly more explicit about the output structure (e.g., whether it returns a single object or array, and field names). Overall, it is sufficiently complete for a read-only data query tool with clear annotations.

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 already describes all three parameters with 100% coverage, so the description does not need to repeat parameter details. The description does not add extra parameter-level semantics beyond the schema, warranting the baseline score.

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 specifies the tool's output: live, simulation-aware gamma flip, call wall, put wall, and max pain. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by highlighting its computation on effective OI and its timeliness relative to /v1/exposure/levels.

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 statement 'More current than /v1/exposure/levels during the session' provides clear context for when to use this tool to get the most up-to-date levels intraday. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools like get_levels or get_max_pain or state 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.