market-gex

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: it explains the calculation method ('Standard SpotGamma-style calculation: calls subtract gamma, puts add gamma'), the interpretation of the vol regime signal (positive GEX = pinning, negative = acceleration), and data source (CBOE delayed). This is comprehensive and beyond basic naming.

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 concise, front-loading the core purpose and key outputs in the first sentence, then adding technical detail and usage guidance in subsequent sentences. Every sentence adds value without 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 no annotations and no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does, what it returns, how it calculates, and its data source. It also suggests a complementary tool for broader context, making it sufficiently complete for an agent to understand the tool's role.

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 100% and each parameter already has a description including defaults (e.g., days_out defaults to 45, top_n defaults to 10). The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond reinforcing those defaults; it does not introduce new semantic nuances. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 purpose: 'Dealer gamma exposure (GEX) analysis for any US equity or ETF' and lists specific outputs (aggregate GEX, gamma flip level, key pinning strikes, vol regime signal). It distinguishes itself from sibling tool 'options-snapshot' by suggesting to use them together, making the tool's unique function clear.

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 usage context: it works with US equities/ETFs, provides GEX analysis, and suggests using it with 'options-snapshot for full options context.' It also notes the data is free and delayed. However, it does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool or list alternatives, but the guidance is still helpful and clear.

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