Get Gex Analysis

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Analyze,' which implies a read-only operation, but it does not state whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns real-time/historical data, or any other behavioral trait. No side effects or limitations are mentioned.

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, focused sentence with no filler. 'Analyze Gamma Exposure (GEX) levels and market impact' is front-loaded with the core purpose and is immediately scannable, making it efficient for an agent parsing many tool definitions.

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 existence of an output schema and the tool's moderate complexity (nested params, no annotations), the description is far too thin. It omits parameter behavior, usage context, and any clarifiers that would help an agent invoke it correctly. While the output schema covers return values, the input side and selection criteria remain undocumented enough to be risky.

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 0% (the critical 'params' object has no schema description), and the tool description does not mention min_oi or base_coin at all. The agent gets no explanation of what these parameters do or how they influence the analysis, so the description fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 identifies the resource (Gamma Exposure/GEX) and the action (analyze levels and market impact), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like vanna, flow, and skew analysis. It is not a tautology and gives a specific enough purpose, though it could be more precise about what 'levels' and 'market impact' mean.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool instead of its many siblings (e.g., get_vanna_analysis, get_flow_analysis). It does not mention contexts, exclusions, or alternatives, leaving the agent to guess based on the name alone.

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