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

Annotations already convey read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive safety. The description adds valuable behavior beyond that by disclosing the output content (net GEX, gamma flip, per-strike call/put gamma), which is essential since there is no output schema. It omits rate limits/pagination, but those are less critical for a simple two-param read.

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?

Three sentences, each with clear purpose: first states what the tool does and its scope, second explains when it is useful, third shows a complete invocation. There is no filler and the core purpose is 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 two-parameter read-only tool with rich annotations and full schema coverage, the description covers the call shape (example), the return content (gamma metrics by strike), and the use case. The only gaps are minor items like result ordering, pagination, or expiry handling, which are not critical for correct 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%, so the schema already fully documents 'symbol' and '_apiKey'. The description's example invocation matches the schema's own examples and adds no new semantic meaning, keeping it at the baseline 3.

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 states a specific verb ('Get') targeting a specific resource ('options gamma exposure (GEX) by strike') and enumerates what is returned (net GEX, gamma flip, per-strike call/put gamma). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like flashalpha_greeks, flashalpha_iv, and flashalpha_levels without needing to inspect their schemas.

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 gives a concrete use case ('Useful for reading dealer positioning and likely support/resistance'), which signals when an agent should call it. However, it does not name sibling alternatives or explain when to choose a different tool, so the guidance is contextual but lacks explicit exclusion criteria.

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