get_smart_money_flow

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It explains the tool filters for certain order types and returns flow patterns, but it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, nor does it discuss data sources, limitations, or interpretation. The verbs imply a non-destructive analysis, but more detail could be added.

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 separate sections for purpose, use cases, args, and returns. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundancy or fluff. It is front-loaded with the core purpose.

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?

The tool is simple (one parameter, no output schema), and the description covers purpose, usage, and parameter. However, the returns are vaguely described as 'Smart money flow patterns and significant trades' without defining the structure or content of the result. It also lacks context on data recency or market applicability, leaving some ambiguity for an agent.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds 'Stock symbol' for the ticker parameter, which is a minor clarification over the schema's type string, but provides no additional format or usage details. For a single simple parameter, this is sufficient but not rich.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Identify institutional/smart money options trades.' It further clarifies the scope by listing filters ('large trades, sweeps, and block orders') and explicit use cases, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_options_flow.

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 an explicit 'Use this tool when the user asks about:' section with a bulleted list of intents (smart money flow, large trades, block trades, whale activity). It does not state when not to use the tool or mention alternatives, but the positive guidance is clear and practical.

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