Get Unusual Options

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by specifying the exact conditions (Volume > OI or IV > 50%) that define 'unusual', which goes beyond what annotations or schema provide. It does not mention return format, but the annotations lower the bar for safety disclosure.

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 immediately states the action and the key criteria. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or filler, making it appropriately concise.

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?

With only one required parameter and no output schema, the description is largely sufficient. It covers what the tool does, what qualifies as unusual, and the underlying purpose. It could be enhanced by mentioning the lookback period or return format, but for a simple read-only scan of a single symbol, this is adequately complete for an agent.

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 100% (the only parameter 'symbol' is clearly described with examples). The tool description does not add significant meaning to the parameter beyond what the schema already provides, but it does place the symbol in the context of the scan. This aligns with the baseline of 3 when schema covers parameters.

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 'Scans' and clearly identifies the resource as 'unusual options activity', with concrete criteria (Volume > Open Interest or high IV > 50%) that distinguish it from sibling tools like get_options_chain or get_options_analytics. The phrase 'to detect smart money positioning' adds a clear purpose.

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 when to use this tool (when you want to detect unusual options activity/smart money positioning) but gives no explicit guidance on when not to use it or which sibling alternative to choose. There are no exclusions or named alternatives, so it relies on the inferred use case.

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