calculate_named_proxy_gamma

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 states the calculation operation but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, what inputs are required beyond the schema, whether a named proxy must already exist, or what the output looks like. This is a significant gap for a computational tool.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It is concise and scannable, though the brevity comes at the cost of substantive guidance in other dimensions.

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?

This is a six-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage. The description does not define 'named durable proxy definition,' does not reference the get_proxy_definition sibling for obtaining one, and does not explain how the parameters interact or what result shape to expect. An agent would not have enough information to invoke this tool reliably.

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% and the description adds no meaning to any of the six parameters. It does not explain what target_symbol refers to in the context of a named durable proxy, how expirations behave, or how dividend_yield, risk_free_rate, and max_expirations affect the calculation. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of parameter documentation.

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 uses the specific verb 'Calculate' and identifies a distinct resource, 'GEX', further qualified by 'named durable proxy definition.' This makes the tool's core function clear, though it does not explicitly contrast it with the sibling calculate_proxy_gamma.

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 phrase 'using a named durable proxy definition' implies this tool is appropriate when a durable named proxy already exists, but it does not state when to prefer it over alternatives such as calculate_proxy_gamma or get_proxy_definition. Usage context is suggested, not explicit.

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