options-snapshot

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the data source (CBOE delayed data), freshness (15-min delay during trading hours), cost ($0.015/call), and that no API key is required. It does not cover error behavior or rate limits, but the disclosed traits are sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's behavior as a safe, bounded-cost query.

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 three sentences, efficiently front-loading the core functionality and key metrics. Every sentence adds value: purpose, data source/limitations, and complementary context. No redundant or vague phrasing.

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, the description lists the key return fields (IV30, put/call volume ratio, top calls/puts, unusual-volume flags), giving the agent a clear idea of what to expect. It also covers cost, data source, and sibling relationships. It does not detail the exact structure of the response, but for a snapshot tool this is reasonable completeness.

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 already describes both parameters (ticker and top_n) fully, achieving 100% schema coverage. The description adds value by listing the specific output metrics (IV30, put/call volume ratio, etc.), but does not further clarify the parameters beyond the schema. Thus it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 provides an 'Options intelligence snapshot' for any US equity, listing specific metrics (IV30, put/call volume ratio, top calls/puts by volume, unusual-volume flags). It distinguishes itself from siblings by noting it complements us-stock-price and equity-technicals with the options-layer sentiment layer, differentiating it from related tools like 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 states when to use this tool: alongside us-stock-price and equity-technicals for complete trade context. It also notes the data is free, delayed by 15-min during trading hours, and costs $0.015/call, providing important usage constraints. However, it does not specify when not to use or mention alternatives, so it is not a full 5.

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