stock_options_unusual_activity

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only and non-destructive. The description goes well beyond by detailing the scan behavior: 'Scans the soonest few expirations, filters out illiquid strikes (under min_volume), and returns the top-N sorted by V/OI descending.' It also explains the V/OI interpretation and aggregate bias, offering rich operational context.

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 longer than a single sentence but is well-structured into a summary line, usage context, and Args/Returns sections. Every sentence adds value, though the V/OI interpretation paragraph could be seen as slightly verbose for a tool description.

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?

With no output schema, the Returns section exhaustively lists all fields returned, including the nested unusual contracts structure. Combined with parameter documentation, usage guidance, and algorithmic explanation, the description fully equips an agent to invoke the tool and interpret results.

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 input schema contains only titles and defaults, with zero description coverage. The description's Args section fully documents all four parameters, including examples (symbol: AAPL, NVDA) and semantics (min_volume prevents noise, expiries covers weeklies + monthlies), effectively compensating for the schema 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?

The description opens with a clear, specific statement: 'Top strikes by volume / open-interest ratio — institutional positioning signal.' It then lists concrete user intents ('any unusual options activity on X?', 'where is the smart money positioned on NVDA before earnings?'), which sharply distinguishes it from siblings like stock_options_chain, volume_breakout_scanner, and smart_volume_scanner.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use scenarios and explains the V/OI screening logic. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the user-intent examples and the clear focus on unusual activity effectively guide selection.

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