stock_options_unusual_activity

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: it scans soonest few expirations, filters illiquid strikes (min_volume), returns top-N sorted by V/OI descending, and provides aggregate volume. It does not mention destructive actions or rate limits, but these are not expected for a read-only screener.

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-organized: one-line purpose, usage examples, behavioral explanation, parameter list, and return description. Every sentence adds value, no redundancy. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description fully documents return fields (underlying_price, expiries_scanned, volume totals, unusual list with detailed fields). It explains filtering, sorting, and aggregation logic. The tool is complex, but the description is complete.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must explain each parameter, which it does thoroughly: symbol (with examples), top_n (count, default), min_volume (purpose, default), expiries (definition, default). All parameters are clearly defined beyond what the schema provides.

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's purpose: providing top strikes by volume/open-interest ratio as an institutional positioning signal. It gives specific user query examples ("any unusual options activity on X?", "where is the smart money positioned on NVDA before earnings?") and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like stock_options_chain by focusing on V/OI screening.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool, including specific queries and contexts. It does not provide explicit when-not-to-use or direct comparisons with siblings, but the context (smart money, unusual activity) and sibling list imply when alternatives like stock_options_chain or smart_volume_scanner might be more appropriate.

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