get_options_flow_overview

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and open-world. Description adds concrete output fields (call_put_volume_ratio, consecutive_days, total_premium, avg_iv), structure (data, stats, dates), and the 403 error for basic users. No contradictions.

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?

Four sentences with front-loaded purpose. No redundancy, but could be more structured (e.g., list). Still efficient and informative.

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 read-only tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers return structure (data, stats, dates) and key fields. Missing details on stats/dates fields but overall sufficient for selection and invocation.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% with adequate descriptions. The description clarifies sort enum meanings ('streak=longest streaks first') but adds no new parameter-level details beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 returns a daily options flow table with specific aggregated metrics (call/put volume, premium, IV, streaks). It uses a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('options flow table'), and distinguishes from sibling tools like get_options_flow_signals and get_options_flow_timeline by focusing on a single-day overview.

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?

Provides explicit example queries ('what's the options flow today', 'show me the top premium plays') and notes the tier restriction (Pro only). Lacks explicit when-not-to-use or direct comparisons to sibling tools, but the examples give clear context.

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