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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool is snapshot-based, informational only, and involves payment with a trial. It does not explicitly state read-only or idempotent behavior, but the informational nature implies no side effects. Some gaps in rate limits or latency remain, but overall adequately transparent.

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 moderately sized with a clear structure: purpose and examples first, then output format, then behavior (snapshot/informational), then payment details, and finally comparison with pitch. Each sentence adds meaningful information, though slightly verbose in parts.

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 (one parameter, no output schema) and complexity (paid call with 402 handling), the description covers the output (zone and score), behavior (snapshot, informational), payment model, and distinction from pitch. It does not address error handling for invalid symbols, but overall it is sufficiently complete for an agent to use the tool 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 100% with one parameter already described. The description adds value by providing concrete examples (e.g., GC=F, CL=F) and explaining the domain (28 continuous futures across categories). This helps the agent understand acceptable inputs beyond the schema's generic description.

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 specifies the verb 'Return', the resource 'bottom/top verdict for one commodity future', and the output format including zone and score range. It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'pitch' by noting that this tool answers any symbol while pitch is limited to a showcase symbol.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool (for any symbol) versus the free 'pitch' tool (only showcase symbol). It also provides guidance on the payment model, the 402 challenge, and the need for a PAYMENT-SIGNATURE header, covering both usage context and alternatives.

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