Coinglass: getCoinglassOptionsInfo

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond stating the nature of the data (open interest and trading volume). It does not disclose pagination behavior or other traits, but the schema covers page/limit parameters.

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 clear sentence (12 words), which is efficient and front-loaded. However, it could be slightly expanded to include usage guidance without losing conciseness.

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 no output schema, the description should give a hint about the return structure. It only says 'detailed information', which is vague. The tool is simple with one required parameter, but the description fails to complete the picture of what the agent can expect.

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 provides 100% coverage of parameters with descriptions for symbol, page, and limit. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema; it merely states the tool's general purpose. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 provides detailed information about options' open interest and trading volume. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like getCoinglassOpenInterestHistory, which might cover similar data for futures. The name 'OptionsInfo' helps, but the description could be more precise about the symbol requirement.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many other Coinglass tools (e.g., for ETFs or futures). It does not mention prerequisites, context, or alternatives.

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