get_gex_by_strike

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses meaningful behavioral output: the tool returns a net GEX strike curve, includes call/put contributions, and identifies dominance. It also defines the `exp` behavior. It does not mention potential errors or data availability, but for a read-only data retrieval tool this is adequate.

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, front-loaded with the main purpose and outcome, followed by parameter-specific guidance. Each sentence adds value with 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, output schema present), the description is largely complete. It explains the core functionality, the optional parameter, and the expected output. The only minor gap is the lack of explicit usage contrast with sibling tools, but this does not hinder basic selection and invocation.

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 does so well for `exp` by listing exact accepted values ('combined', 'nearest', 'first_monthly') and the default. `ticker` is self-explanatory from its name and context. This is strong compensation despite the lack of schema-level descriptions.

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 ('Get'), names the exact resource ('net GEX (gamma exposure) strike curve'), and adds distinguishing output detail ('call/put contributions', 'identifies key strikes and call-vs-put dominance'). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like get_gamma_curve or get_gamma_by_expiration.

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 context by explaining the `exp` parameter values and default. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_gamma_curve or get_gamma_by_expiration, so the usage guidance remains implied rather than explicit.

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