Gamma Exposure (GEX)

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

Annotations only provide readOnlyHint=true, so the description carries the burden for behavioral disclosure. It explains what GEX measures and the dealer hedging implications (positive/negative GEX behavior), which adds meaningful behavioral context. It does not cover rate limits, but for a read-only analytics tool, the provided context is substantial.

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 well-structured with clear sections (purpose, explanation, usage, args, returns). It is concise, with no filler, but it could be more front-loaded: the first sentence is good, but the explanatory paragraph on GEX mechanics is useful yet adds length; it earns its place though.

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?

The tool is moderately complex (3 params, no output schema), but the description covers the output ('GEX by strike, total GEX, and key levels') and provides enough conceptual background. It lacks details on return format, but for a data retrieval tool, it is reasonably complete. So it is a strong 4.

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 briefly mentions ticker, expiration, and aggregate parameters, but it does not explain the format of expiration (e.g., 'YYYY-MM-DD'), nor does it clarify the semantics of the aggregate parameter beyond its name. The Args section adds minimal value beyond the schema, though the overall purpose and return description help.

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 what the tool does: 'Get Gamma Exposure (GEX) levels and flip points.' It specifically identifies the resource (GEX) and the action (get), and the use cases ('when the user asks about gamma exposure, support/resistance from options, dealer hedging, market maker positioning') distinguish it from sibling tools like get_options_chain or get_charm_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 provides explicit 'Use this tool when' conditions and lists specific question types, which is clear context for invocation. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives (e.g., get_charm_exposure for charm, get_third_order_greeks for higher-order Greeks), so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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