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=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations by describing the snapshot nature ('Daily snapshot'), asset coverage (Bitcoin/Ethereum), and the exact analytical components returned (top strikes, put/call ratio, dealer hedging map, ATM IV by expiry).

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: the first is an action-oriented trigger list, and the second enumerates the content of the snapshot. Every word earns its place; no filler or repetition of schema information.

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?

Without an output schema, the description clearly outlines the main return components (strikes, put/call ratio, hedging map, ATM IV by expiry). It could be slightly more explicit about the time period or update frequency, but the 'daily snapshot' label provides adequate context for a 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?

The tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter burden for the description to address. The description accurately conveys that the tool is a fixed-scope snapshot without requiring user input, satisfying the baseline for parameterless tools.

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 clearly states the tool returns a daily snapshot of listed crypto options with specific content: top strikes, put/call ratio, dealer hedging map, and ATM IV by expiry. The trigger phrases 'options walls', 'gamma exposure', 'DVOL', and 'IV term structure' precisely define the scope and distinguish it from the sibling get_options_flow (which likely focuses on individual flow events).

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 starts with 'Call this when the user asks...', giving explicit usage triggers and listing covered topics. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools, but the trigger list is specific enough to guide selection in most cases.

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