get_cross_index_gex

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explains the purpose ('compare GEX across major indices') and adds context ('to understand market-wide positioning'), but doesn't disclose specifics like data source, potential limitations, or whether it's read-only. For a simple market data tool, this is adequate but not exceptional.

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 compact and front-loaded, with the main purpose in the first sentence. It includes only essential information: purpose, typical user requests, parameter explanation, and return value. No fluff or redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (1 optional parameter, no output schema), the description covers all necessary aspects: what it does, when to use, parameter details, and return value. It is complete for an AI agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It fully explains the only parameter: 'tickers: Comma-separated tickers or None for defaults (SPY,QQQ,IWM,DIA)' — covering format, default, and specific tickers. This adds significant meaning beyond the raw 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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Compare GEX across major indices' and 'Shows gamma exposure comparison between SPY, QQQ, IWM, and other major indices.' This specific verb+resource phrasing distinguishes it from siblings like get_gex, which likely targets a single index.

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 explicit use cases: 'Use this tool when the user asks about: Cross-index GEX comparison, Market-wide gamma positioning, Index relative GEX.' It gives clear context for when to use, though it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives, which deducts a point.

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