get_proxy_definition

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal that the tool returns a 'durable proxy definition' and a 'verification status,' which is useful context. It does not explain what 'durable' means, what the verification status represents, or whether any side effects or permissions are involved, but for a getter this is a moderate but not critical 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 sentence with no filler words and is front-loaded with the action ('Return'). 'Durable' and 'verification status' are compact additions that convey some nuance. It is appropriately brief for a simple getter, though the brevity contributes to under-specification 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?

For a tool with no output schema, no annotations, and an undocumented required parameter, the description is too thin. It does not explain what the proxy definition actually contains, what 'verification status' means, or how this retrieval relates to the gamma calculation siblings. An agent could call it correctly by name alone, but it would be uncertain about the returned structure and the semantic role of 'target_symbol.'

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 never mentions 'target_symbol' or explains how to supply it. Since the schema provides no field description either, an agent is left with only the parameter name to infer meaning. The description fails to add any value beyond the structured schema.

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 ('Return') and names a distinct resource: 'durable proxy definition' plus 'verification status.' This differentiates it from siblings like calculate_proxy_gamma and calculate_named_proxy_gamma, which imply computation rather than retrieval. However, 'durable proxy definition' itself is not explained, so the purpose is clear but slightly under-specified.

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 versus alternatives such as calculate_proxy_gamma or compare_gamma_with_price. It does not state whether this should be called before calculations, for validation purposes, or when a saved proxy mapping is needed. Only the verb 'Return' weakly implies a retrieval-oriented use case.

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