Options tape: biggest prints and premium flow (BTC + ETH)

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

Annotations only cover read-only and open-world status; the description adds real behavioral context: 15-minute refresh cadence, 24h/48h windows, net-premium accounting for multi-leg blocks, and the supported venues (Deribit, OKX). It does not discuss auth, rate limits, or behavior when data is missing.

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?

Two sentences, trigger first, then a tight enumeration of returned metrics. The return-value list is dense but earns its place because no output schema exists, and no sentence is filler.

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?

For a zero-parameter, annotation-light read tool with no output schema, the description effectively documents what comes back (metrics, time windows, venues, update cadence). Only gaps are error/empty-state behavior and how a client should interpret the 'net premium' when legs straddle venues.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the schema carries nothing to interpret; per the baseline, zero-parameter tools start at 4. The description instead spends its words on output fields, which is appropriate here.

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 names a specific resource set: 24h call vs put premium, block-trade share, multi-leg structure count, and largest prints over 48h with strikes, IV and venue. That is enough to separate it from get_options_snapshot or get_iv_surface, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with those 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?

It gives explicit trigger conditions ('when the user asks what big options players are buying, about block trades, or whether call or put premium dominates today'). That is clear when-to-use guidance, but there is no when-not guidance or named alternative for overlapping options tools.

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