get_gamma_snapshot

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 hints that results are 'compact' and 'estimated,' but does not explain what estimation means, whether results are approximate, how expirations are handled, or any limitations. This is thin coverage for a tool with no annotation safety signals.

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 wasted words. It states the verb, resource, and key qualifier efficiently, which is appropriate for a concise tool description.

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 being a relatively simple tool, the description omits important context: what a 'GEX report' contains, how max_expirations affects results, what sign_convention means, and what the returned structure looks like. With no output schema and no annotations, this is a significant completeness gap.

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 should compensate by explaining parameter meaning, but it only loosely mentions 'several symbols' and says nothing about max_expirations or sign_convention. The field names and enum values are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds little beyond what the schema already presents.

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 states the action ('Return'), the resource ('compact estimated GEX reports'), and the scope ('for several symbols'). It is not a tautology and conveys the core function, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like get_gamma_exposure.

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 a use case—getting compact GEX estimates for multiple symbols—but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives, no exclusions, and no context about trade-offs. An agent cannot reliably decide between this and sibling gamma-related tools.

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