options_unusual_activity

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds value by specifying it scans the nearest expiration and flags contracts based on a volume/OI threshold, enhancing transparency beyond 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?

Two sentences, each necessary: first states purpose, second adds key behavior (nearest expiration, threshold). No fluff, front-loaded.

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 scan tool with moderate parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains the core logic and scope, though it does not detail output format (mitigated by openWorldHint annotation). Complete enough for an agent to understand usage.

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?

Input schema provides descriptions for all 4 parameters (100% coverage), and the description does not add significant meaning beyond mentioning the volume/OI threshold concept. Baseline score of 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 verb 'Find' and specific resource 'options contracts with unusually high volume relative to open interest', distinguishing it from sibling tools like options_chain and options_max_pain.

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 implies usage context (scanning for 'smart money' signals) but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives, though sibling tools provide differentiation.

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