Options Flow

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

With readOnlyHint already set to true, the description doesn't need to state read-only behavior. It adds minimal extra behavioral context: mentions it 'identifies unusual activity that may indicate institutional positioning', but doesn't describe limitations, response format, or potential delays. No contradiction with 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 well-structured with a clear opening sentence, bullet-pointed use cases, and separate args/returns sections. It is not overly verbose, though the repetition of 'unusual activity' in the first lines could be tightened. Still, it earns its sentences.

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?

For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, return types, and usage triggers. It doesn't specify output structure, but that's not required without an output schema. It could mention any data assumptions (e.g., real-time data) but is otherwise 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 description states 'ticker: Stock symbol', which explains the parameter's meaning beyond just the field name. Since schema description coverage is 0%, this compensation is valuable. Could add more detail (e.g., ticker format, case sensitivity), but it's sufficient for a simple string parameter.

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 analyzes options flow and unusual activity for a ticker, with specific outputs like call/put volumes and premiums. It distinguishes from siblings like get_options_chain (which shows chains) and get_max_pain by focusing on flow and unusual activity.

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 lists when to use the tool (e.g., 'Options flow', 'Call/put ratio', 'Unusual options activity'), giving clear triggers. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the context is strong enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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