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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description adds useful context: the 24-hour premium comparison, block-trade share, 48-hour largest prints, and a 15-minute update cadence. This goes beyond the annotations by explaining data scope and 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?

The description is two sentences long, front-loaded with use cases, and every clause adds value. It efficiently communicates what the tool returns and how often it updates without redundancy.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately lists the returned data types (call vs put premium, block-trade share, largest prints with strikes/premium/IV) and update frequency. It is complete for the tool's simplicity.

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 description does not need to explain parameter semantics. The baseline for no parameters is 4, and the description provides sufficient content detail without any param ambiguity.

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 uses a specific verb 'Call this when' and clearly identifies the resource: options flow, including block trades and premium. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on big player activity and premium flow rather than market indices, liquidations, or funding data.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: when users ask about big options players, block trades, or call vs put premium dominance. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the use cases are specific enough to guide selection.

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