calculate_proxy_gamma

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral disclosure burden. It only indicates that this is a calculation and provides no return-format details, weighting method, or edge-case behavior. For a tool with multiple financial parameters, this is a meaningful transparency gap.

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. Every word contributes to identifying the tool's purpose, and no redundant information is included.

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?

Despite having 7 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides only one sentence of context. It is enough to orient an agent but far too little to ensure correct invocation, especially since the weighting semantics and the component object's structure are not described.

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%, so the description must compensate. It adds some meaning by identifying 'ETF' and 'explicit components', but it does not explain target_symbol's expected format, how components should be structured, or what expirations, dividend_yield, risk_free_rate, max_expirations, and sign_convention control. The components object also uses additionalProperties: true, leaving the item structure undefined.

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 a specific verb ('Calculate') and names the resource ('weighted proxy GEX for an ETF with explicit components'). The phrase 'with explicit components' distinguishes this tool from its sibling calculate_named_proxy_gamma, so an agent can identify the correct operation based on purpose alone.

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 usage when components are explicitly provided rather than referenced by a named proxy, but it does not explicitly say when to choose this tool over calculate_named_proxy_gamma or how to obtain a proxy definition via get_proxy_definition. The guidance is only implicit, not stated as clear when/when-not instructions.

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