get_options_flow

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

With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits such as data freshness, rate limits, or authentication requirements. It only mentions 'Pro tier' which hints at access restrictions but does not elaborate. No side effects or return behavior are described.

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 very short, which is concise, but it sacrifices clarity. It front-loads key terms but uses a cryptic style lacking verbs and context. It could be more informative without being longer.

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 has only one parameter and no output schema, the description should clarify what the output contains. It lists data types but not their structure or how they are returned (e.g., as a table, heatmap, list). This is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's full behavior.

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 single parameter 'symbol' is not described at all. Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate but fails to explain what inputs are expected (e.g., ticker format, example). The parameter remains ambiguous.

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 mentions specific features (IV, strike heatmap, block trades) and exchanges (Deribit, Lyra, Aevo), giving a good indication of the tool's domain. However, it lacks a clear verb and could more explicitly state that it retrieves options flow data. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on derivatives data, which is unique among the listed tools.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or conditions under which the tool is applicable. The description is purely a list of features without usage direction.

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