Option Positioning Summary

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds what aggregates are produced (volume, OI, IV, concentration), but says nothing about how concentration is computed, aggregation windows, or data freshness.

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 tight sentence with the resource and metric list front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though extremely terse given the tool's five parameters.

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 explained. However, with 0% parameter coverage across five inputs and ambiguous overlap with sibling summary tools, the definition leaves real gaps an agent would need filled to invoke it correctly.

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% across 5 parameters, so top_n, min_strike, max_strike, symbol, and expiry carry no documented meaning anywhere. The description names output metrics but never explains any input parameter, failing to compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb (Summarize) and the exact metrics computed (volume, open interest, IV, concentration) scoped to one expiration. This distinguishes it reasonably well from option_chain and option_greeks, though it does not explicitly differentiate from the similarly-named option_surface_summary and option_activity_summary siblings.

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 phrase 'for one expiration' implies a scope, but there is no statement of when to choose this over option_activity_summary, option_surface_summary, or option_chain. No prerequisites or exclusions are provided.

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