options_flow

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral transparency. It discloses latency differences and return types, but does not mention authentication requirements, rate limits, or whether the tool is read-only or has side effects. It omits important behavioral traits beyond basic functionality.

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 extremely concise, consisting of just two sentences. It front-loads the main purpose and includes key details (supported assets, outputs, latency) without any fluff. Every sentence serves a clear informative purpose.

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 tool is simple (one parameter) and an output schema exists, the description is mostly complete. It covers what the tool does, what it returns, and performance nuances. However, it could add brief context on how the conviction trade or unusual activity is determined to slightly improve completeness.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not elaborate on the single 'ticker' parameter beyond implying it accepts stock tickers or crypto symbols. No format, examples, or constraints are given, leaving the agent with minimal semantic guidance beyond the parameter name and overall tool purpose.

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 options flow analysis for both stocks and specific cryptocurrencies (BTC/ETH/SOL/AVAX via Deribit). It lists the return outputs: signal, conviction trade, put/call ratio, and unusual activity. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'equity_analysis' or 'token_launches' by focusing on options-specific flow data.

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 context on when to use this tool (for options flow) and differentiates update speeds (crypto under 1s, stocks cached 5 min), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives among siblings. There is no comparison to other tools, leaving the agent to infer usage without clear guidance.

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