get_gamma_curve

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses the realtime intraday pull and the trading-hours constraint when exp is a specific date, which is valuable. However, it omits other behavioral context like read-only nature (though implied by 'Get'), auth needs, or data freshness. There is also a mismatch between the schema default (null) and the description's claim that 'combined' is default.

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 two sentences. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second covers parameters and constraints. Every word earns its place; no filler 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?

An output schema is present, so return values are documented elsewhere. For the complexity of this tool, the description covers the main parameters and key constraints. It could be more complete if it mentioned when to use this vs. sibling tools, but that is not essential given the schema and clear purpose.

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 is the sole source of parameter meaning. It explains exp with its possible values and default, and realtime with its intraday semantics. Ticker is left implicit (obvious). This adds significant meaning beyond the raw schema, but the default-value mismatch with the schema prevents a perfect score.

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 function: "Get the gamma strike curve (net gamma per strike) for a ticker." It uses a specific verb (Get) and resource (gamma strike curve), and the phrase "per strike" distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_gamma_by_expiration and get_gex_by_strike.

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 clear guidance on how to use the exp parameter (with valid values and default) and the realtime parameter (with the trading-hours constraint). However, it does not explicitly contrast this tool with alternatives such as get_gamma_by_expiration or get_gex_by_strike, so exclusions are not stated.

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