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

The description reveals the output contents (classifier values, plain-English description) and the 'since open' time frame, which adds context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation. However, it does not disclose potential limitations, data dependencies, or behavioral quirks (e.g., requires live market data, only works on trading days). It does not contradict 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?

The description is a single, dense sentence that front-loads the core concept (settled vs live shift) and lists the key output components. Each phrase adds value and there is no fluff, though the heavy use of jargon without expansion prevents a perfect score.

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 the absence of an output schema, the description does a good job of explaining what will be returned (adjustments, percent shifts, classifier, narrative). It also provides context of 'since open' which helps the agent understand the data time frame. It is adequate for a read-only data tool with informative annotations.

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 provides descriptions for all three parameters (apiKey, expiry, symbol), giving 100% coverage. The tool description does not add additional parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 what the tool does: it computes settled vs live dealer risk shift, including GEX/DEX adjustment, percent shifts, direction classifier, and a plain-English description. This is specific and distinguishes it from siblings like get_dex or get_gex by emphasizing the intraday shift and classifier.

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 use for intraday dealer risk monitoring ('since open', 'intraday flow impact') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusions or alternative tool names are mentioned, so usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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