Option Activity Summary

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuine behavioral fact — it will not infer trade direction (no bullish/bearish classification) — which is useful context. But it says nothing about bounding mechanics, ranking behavior, or result pagination.

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?

A single sentence with no filler, so it is structurally tight. But brevity here comes at the cost of substance, and 'bounded' is front-loaded jargon that does not orient the reader.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, which helps. However, for a 7-parameter, 0%-coverage tool, the description leaves the filtering, sorting, and pagination contract entirely undocumented, which is inadequate.

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%, so the schema names parameters without explaining them, and the description does not compensate. Seven parameters (top_n, sort_by enum, min_volume, min_open_interest, max_expiries, start_index) receive no meaning, units, or interaction notes beyond the vague word 'bounded'.

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 verb 'rank' and resource 'option activity' are identifiable, and 'multi-expiry' gives scope. However, 'bounded' is undefined and nothing distinguishes it from siblings like option_positioning_summary or option_surface_summary, which also summarize options 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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus the seven sibling option tools, nor any prerequisites such as valid symbol format or market-hours assumptions. Usage must be inferred entirely from the name.

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