stock_options_unusual_activity

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds rich behavioral context: it scans soonest expirations, filters illiquid strikes with min_volume, returns top-N sorted by V/OI descending, and includes aggregate call/put volume. It also explains the V/OI ratio >1 as a flag for institutional positioning. No contradictions.

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 well-structured with a one-line summary, usage guidance, technical details, parameter docs, and return fields. It is front-loaded and informative. Though slightly lengthy, every sentence adds value. Minor improvement could be tightening the parameter explanation.

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 4 parameters and no output schema, the description provides a detailed list of return fields including underlying_price, expiries_scanned, aggregate volumes, and each unusual contract's attributes (strike, side, volume, OI, ratio, IV, etc.). The filtering logic and purpose are fully explained, leaving no gaps in understanding.

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%, but the description fully compensates by documenting each parameter: symbol (example symbols), top_n (default 10), min_volume (purpose to prevent noise), expiries (default 4, typical coverage). It adds meaning beyond the schema's type/default fields.

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 it returns top strikes by volume/open-interest ratio as an institutional positioning signal. It uses specific verbs like 'scans', 'filters', 'returns' and distinguishes itself from siblings like 'stock_options_chain' which likely provides full chain data. The one-line summary is precise and immediately conveys the tool's function.

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 provides explicit use cases: 'when the user asks "any unusual options activity on X?" or wants a V/OI screener for a ticker'. It explains the V/OI ratio meaning and when the signal is strong. While it does not explicitly state when not to use it, the context and sibling tools make alternatives clear.

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