Options walls, gamma exposure and DVOL (BTC + ETH)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, giving the safety profile. The description adds useful behavioral context: it is a daily snapshot (not real-time), and it enumerates the data components (top strikes by OI, put/call ratio, dealer hedging map, ATM IV by expiry). This exceeds the minimum but stops short of describing data sources or potential refresh times.

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, front-loaded with usage triggers and followed by a compact list of included data. Every sentence provides distinct value, and there is no filler or 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?

The description fully covers the typical user intents (walls, GEX, DVOL, term structure) and explicitly lists the output components, which is essential given the lack of an output schema. It is complete for a read-only, zero-parameter tool.

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?

With zero parameters, the schema provides no parameter details. The description compensates by clarifying the asset scope (Bitcoin and Ethereum) and the content of the snapshot. Since there are no parameter names to explain, a baseline of 4 is appropriate.

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 specific verbs and resources: 'where the big options bets sit', 'call/put walls', 'gamma exposure (GEX)', 'zero-gamma level', 'implied volatility (DVOL)', and 'IV term structure'. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like get_options_flow and get_open_interest by focusing on snapshot-level positioning and hedging 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?

Explicitly starts with 'Call this when the user asks...' followed by a list of concrete triggers. This provides strong guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, though it does not name alternatives explicitly. The 'Daily snapshot' qualifier also frames the expected temporal scope.

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