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

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

Annotations already mark it as read-only and open-world; the description adds useful behavior beyond that: 24h premium comparison, 48h window for prints, venue scope (Deribit/OKX), and a 15-minute refresh cadence. It does not specify how many prints qualify as 'largest' or their sort order, so it stops short of full transparency.

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?

Three sentences with no filler: trigger phrase, return summary, refresh cadence. Everything earns its place and the most decision-relevant info is front-loaded.

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 read-only tool, the description covers the essential return content, assets, venues, and recency. The main gaps are the lack of an output schema and the unspecified number/ordering of the largest prints, but these are minor given the description already enumerates the fields returned.

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 has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline of 4 applies; the description adds no parameter semantics because there are none to document.

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 concrete trigger ('Call this when the user asks...') and names a precise resource: options flow, block trades, and 24h call vs put premium. The return fields (largest prints with strikes, premium, IV, venue) plus the BTC + ETH scope in the title make it clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like get_iv_surface or get_whale_tape.

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 explicitly states when to invoke this tool: when the user asks about big options players' buying, block trades, or call/put premium dominance. It does not explicitly name an alternative or spell out when-not-to-use, but the trigger conditions are clear enough for selection.

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