Get Flow Analysis

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only says 'Analyze,' which weakly implies read-only behavior. It does not disclose whether data is live or historical, how 'unusual activity' is determined, or whether any side effects or access constraints exist.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the verb and object, and contains no filler or repetition. Each phrase adds meaningful information about what the analysis covers.

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 presence of an output schema covers return-value details, but the definition still lacks usage guidance, behavioral transparency, and parameter context. Given the large sibling set and absence of annotations, the description is not complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool 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 description mentions analysis dimensions but says nothing about the `params` container or its fields `min_oi` and `base_coin`. With context signals reporting 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate for this gap but does not; an agent must rely on defaults and inferred meaning.

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 ('Analyze') and resource ('options flow') and lists concrete outputs (volume, put/call ratios, unusual activity), so the core function is clear. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like get_open_interest_analysis or get_market_sentiment_analysis, so it falls short of full distinction.

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 over the many sibling analysis tools, and it never mentions alternatives or exclusion criteria. An agent is left to infer the use case from domain knowledge rather than explicit direction.

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