Option Volume

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and openWorld hints, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds value by precisely listing the output fields (call_volume, put_volume, put_call_ratio, etc.), providing behavioral context beyond annotations.

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, front-loaded with the core action and resource, and efficiently lists the return fields without extraneous words. Every sentence adds value.

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 one required parameter and no output schema, the description adequately specifies the return fields. It mentions 'top active contracts' but does not elaborate on their structure, which is a minor gap for complete understanding.

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 single parameter 'symbol' is well-described in the schema with format example 'AAPL.US' and scope ('US market only'). Schema description coverage is 100%, so the description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 action ('Get'), resource ('real-time option call/put volume stats'), and specifies the exact return fields including volume, ratio, and open interest. It distinguishes from sibling tools like option_volume_daily (real-time vs daily) and option_quote (volume vs price).

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 implies usage for real-time option volume stats on US stocks but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like option_chain_info_by_date or option_quote. No exclusions or comparisons are provided.

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