stock_options_unusual_activity

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, it discloses the internal algorithm: scans the soonest expirations, filters out illiquid strikes below min_volume, sorts by V/VOI descendant, and helps to explain the OI > 1 interpretation. It also notes it returns aggregate call vs assets volume for directional-bias commentary.

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 longer, but every sentence adds meaningful behavior or usage guidance. It is logically organized: a one-line summary, example use cases, parameter details, and return format. There is no fluff or repeated schema text.

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 no output schema, it fully documents the return fields: underlying_price, expiries_scanned, total_call_volume, total_put_volume, put_call_volume_ratio, and each unusual contract's fields. For an additional complexity tool with four parameters, it is complete.

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 descriptive coverage (0%), meaning the tool description carries full burden. It defines each parameter's purpose and default, such as 'top_n: How many strikes to return. Default 10' and 'min_volume: Filter floor... prevents noise from illiquid strikes'.

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 'Top strikes by volume / open-interest ratio — institutional positioning signal,' which names the resource and specific metric. It then gives concrete verbs: 'Scans…filters…returns,' making it clearly distinguishable from a generic stock_options_chain.

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 explicitly lists canonical trigger phrases: 'any unusual options activity on X?', 'where is the smart money positioned...', and 'wants an OI screener for a ticker.' It does not name an alternative sibling tool or say 'do not use this for X', but the use cases are specific enough to guide selection.

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