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

With readOnlyHint=true already covering the safety profile, the description adds valuable behavioral details: equal weights when omitted and normalization to sum 1, plus the 50-symbol limit. These clarify how the aggregation behaves beyond what annotations provide. A minor gap is that it does not explicitly describe the output format (e.g., whether it returns separate aggregates per metric or a combined value), but this is not a serious omission given the read-only nature.

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, front-loaded with the core function, followed by weighting behavior and use cases. Every sentence adds unique value with no redundancy or filler. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 has no output schema, so the description should explain what the tool returns. It mentions it is an 'aggregate' of the four metrics, but does not explicitly state the return structure (one combined number vs. separate values per metric). Given the tool aggregates multiple metrics, this ambiguity is a significant gap. The description otherwise covers purpose, parameters, and use cases well, but the missing return-value clarification prevents a higher score.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description significantly enhances parameter understanding. It clarifies that weights default to equal and are normalized to sum 1, which the schema does not state. It also reinforces the symbol limit ('up to 50 symbols'), adding meaning beyond the parameter descriptions. This removes ambiguity about how the weights behave.

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 computes a weighted cross-symbol aggregate of GEX, DEX, VEX, and CHEX across up to 50 symbols, specifying a unique capability that differentiates it from single-symbol siblings like get_gex or get_dex. The verb 'aggregate' (implied in the noun phrase) and explicit resource naming make the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicit use cases ('portfolio/basket scanner, sector exposure roll-up, or custom index dealer positioning'), giving clear context on when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools for comparison, so it falls slightly short of a full 5.

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