get_market_total_options_volume

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'get' implies a read operation but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like rate limits, data freshness, authentication needs, or what 'total options volume' entails (e.g., aggregated across all tickers, timeframes). This leaves significant gaps for a tool with market-wide data.

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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loaded with the core action, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 complexity of market data tools and no annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values, data scope, or usage context, which is inadequate for helping an agent invoke it correctly among many siblings.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add param info, which is fine here, but it could hint at implicit parameters like date ranges if applicable. Baseline is 4 for 0 params, as it doesn't need to compensate for schema gaps.

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 verb 'get' and the resource 'total options volume across the market', making the purpose explicit. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_option_trades_flow_alerts' or 'get_screener_option_contracts', which might also relate to options data, so it lacks sibling distinction for a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools related to options, market data, and flows, there's no indication of context, exclusions, or comparisons, leaving the agent to guess based on tool names alone.

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