get_gamma_exposure

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It reveals that the result is 'estimated' but does not disclose calculation assumptions, data requirements, sign convention effects, potential pitfalls, or any side effects. One sentence is insufficient for a computational tool of this complexity.

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. It is concise and readable, though it sacrifices helpful detail for brevity.

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?

With 7 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and several similar sibling tools, a one-sentence description is far from adequate. It leaves the agent without guidance on parameter interpretation, return shape, sign conventions, or differentiation from sibling gamma tools.

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 does not compensate. It mentions 'expiration' as part of the output granularity but provides no meaning for symbol, spot, expirations, dividend_yield, risk_free_rate, max_expirations, or sign_convention beyond what the schema titles already imply.

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 clear action ('Calculate') and resource ('estimated GEX') with explicit output granularity ('per strike and expiration'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_gamma_snapshot by implying a strike/expiration-level breakdown, though it does not name alternatives.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus get_gamma_snapshot, calculate_proxy_gamma, or compare_gamma_with_price. The description only explains what it does, not when it is the appropriate choice or what prerequisite conditions apply.

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