ElkassabgiData

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, so the tool is safe. The description adds behavioral context: the API key is masked and never echoed, which is valuable beyond the annotation. It also mentions how to add a key, though that may be instructional rather than functional.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the main purpose and adds key context (masking). No wasted words.

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 output schema, the description should specify the return format more precisely. It implies a boolean or status message, but does not clarify the exact output structure. With zero parameters, it is partially complete but could be improved.

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?

No parameters are defined (schema coverage 100%), so the description adds meaning by explaining what the tool does. Baseline is 4 for zero-parameter tools.

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 checks whether an API key is configured, specifies the key is masked, and indicates it provides instructions on how to add a key. It is distinct from sibling tools which cover data freshness, economic series, and family status.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies use for checking authentication status, but does not mention when not to use it or provide alternative approaches.

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

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, but the description adds important behavioral context: dates are never fabricated, and silent upstream outages are shown as stale. This value-add explains the tool's honesty policy beyond what annotations provide.

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 with no wasted words. The first sentence delivers the core functionality, and the second adds a crucial guarantee. Perfectly front-loaded and efficient.

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 optional parameter, read-only), the description covers the return fields and key behavioral trait. There is no output schema, but the description lists the important output elements. Minor gap: no mention of what 'full board' returns, but still sufficient.

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 100% for the single parameter 'source'. The description does not add new meaning beyond what the schema already states ('One source id; omit for the full board'). Baseline score of 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 it returns live per-source update status including last successful update, data frontier, and stale/failure flags. The verb 'get' and resource 'data freshness' are specific, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like get_econ_series or get_auth_status by focusing on update status.

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 implies usage for checking data freshness but does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives or when not to use. There is no guidance on prerequisites or exclusions, leaving room for ambiguity.

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

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true. Description adds value by specifying return format (long format with date and value), inclusion of citation and license, and date windowing capability. No contradictions with annotations.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and output, followed by requirement and usage advice. No unnecessary words; every sentence adds value.

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?

Covers the essential information: purpose, output format, prerequisites, and key parameters. Lacks error handling details or citation structure, but given no output schema and moderate complexity, it is nearly complete for an agent to use 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 description coverage is only 25% (only series_id described). Description adds meaning for series_id (source from search_econ_series) and date parameters (windowing), but does not explain max_rows beyond schema defaults. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

States 'Download an economic time series as rows (long format: date, value) with its citation and license.' This uses a specific verb (Download) and resource (economic time series), and distinguishes from sibling get_econ_series_metadata by mentioning the output format and additional attributes.

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?

Explicitly requires the ElkassabgiData API key and advises using date_from/date_to to window long series. Provides clear context for parameter usage, but does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives besides the implicit sibling differentiation.

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

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true. The description adds value beyond annotations by stating 'Free, no key needed' and listing the metadata fields returned. However, it does not disclose potential limitations like rate limits or response size.

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 a single, dense sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's purpose, output, and access requirements. No redundant or unnecessary words.

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, read-only, free), the description covers the essential aspects: what it returns (listed fields) and access conditions. It lacks only minor details like rate limits or response format, which may be inferred from annotations.

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?

The single parameter series_id has no description in the schema (0% coverage), and the description does not clarify its format, expected values, or provide examples. While the name is self-explanatory, the description does not add meaning beyond the schema.

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 'Full metadata for one econ series' and lists specific fields (title, frequency, geography, unit, license, etc.), distinguishing it from siblings like get_econ_series (which likely returns data values) and search_econ_series (for finding series).

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 implies the tool is for retrieving metadata of a known series, but it does not explicitly mention when to use it over alternatives, such as using search_econ_series to find series first or get_econ_series for data values.

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

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

Annotations already set readOnlyHint=true. Description adds 'Live status' (real-time) and 'Free' (cost), which are useful but minimal. No contradictions.

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?

Extremely concise, two sentences with no wasted words. Front-loaded with key information.

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?

Sufficient for a simple status tool with no parameters and no output schema. Lacks detail on what exactly 'headline stats' means, but overall adequate.

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?

No parameters; schema coverage is trivial (100%). Baseline 4 for zero-parameter tools.

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?

Describes specific verb 'get' and resource 'ElkassabgiData family status' with details on headline stats and data currency. Distinguishes from sibling 'get_data_freshness' by mentioning both libraries' stats.

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?

Implied use for checking live status, but no explicit when-to-use or alternatives. 'Free' hints at no cost, but no guidance on when not to use or comparison with siblings.

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

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

Annotations mark the tool as readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds behavioral context: files are full-history and fetched by the user's code, not returned inline. It also mentions authentication requirements. This adds value beyond the annotation without contradiction.

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 informative but slightly wordy; however, it is front-loaded with the core purpose and key details. Every sentence adds value, and the length is appropriate for the complexity of the tool.

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 output schema, the description explains that the tool returns download instructions, not inline data. It covers scope, formats, and authentication. Lacks details on the 'quality' dataset and the 25 academic variables, but overall provides sufficient context for a download link tool.

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 50%, but the description adds meaning by explaining that 'csv' format only applies to bars and that datasets include 'bars', 'variables', and 'quality' (though 'quality' is not elaborated). It also clarifies that files are full-history, which is not in the schema. This compensates for the partial schema coverage.

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 identifies the tool as providing download instructions for specific HF Data Library datasets (OHLCV bars and academic variables), with specific scope (tickers, time range, formats). It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on authenticated download links rather than data retrieval or metadata queries.

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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_econ_series or list_econ_sources. There is no mention of prerequisites, when not to use it, or how it relates to sibling tools. The only usage hint is the key requirement.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the content is 'verbatim from the published dictionary' and 'free', but no further behavioral traits (e.g., caching, rate limits) are disclosed. No contradiction with annotations.

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 short and front-loaded, conveying the core purpose immediately. It could be slightly more concise (e.g., removing 'Free' which is implied), but it efficiently uses two sentences.

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 has no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool returns: definitions and formulas for a known set of variables. It's complete for a simple dictionary lookup.

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?

No parameters are defined, baseline is 4. The description adds value by detailing the output: precisely 25 variables covering specific categories. This fully compensates for the lack of schema details.

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 explicitly states the tool returns 'exact definitions/formulas' of '25 pre-computed academic variables', listing specific families (volatility, spreads, etc.). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that retrieve actual data or metadata.

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 implies the tool should be used to obtain variable definitions, but provides no direct comparison to siblings like get_hf_download_link or search_econ_series. The context makes it fairly obvious, but explicit guidance is absent.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the tool is a safe read. The description adds context about listing sources and licenses, and the 'Free' note implies unrestricted access. No contradictions.

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 very short (14 words) and front-loaded with the action and resource. It is efficient and contains no fluff, though it could incorporate the filter parameter mention.

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 description lacks details about output format (fields, structure) since there is no output schema. It is adequate for a simple list tool but could be more complete by mentioning what fields are returned.

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 the 'contains' parameter well-described. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so 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 lists 'Econ Data Library's sources' with specific categories (statistical offices, central banks, IGOs, research datasets) and a count. It distinguishes from sibling tools like search_econ_series and get_econ_series which deal with series, not sources.

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 term 'Free' hints at no cost but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_econ_series. No when-not or alternative tool mentions are given, though the purpose is clear enough to infer.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true. The description adds that it's free and requires no key, but does not mention any potential limitations like rate limits or pagination behavior. It's consistent and adds moderate context.

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 a single, focused sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose and includes critical details (free, no key, output usage).

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 description explains the return value (series IDs) and usage with sibling tool. For a search tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, it is mostly complete, though could briefly mention result format or pagination.

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 67%, with query and source described. The description does not add parameter details beyond the schema. The limit parameter has only constraints in schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 searches the Econ Data Library catalog, a specific verb and resource. It notes the output of series IDs usable with get_econ_series, distinguishing it from siblings like list_econ_sources and get_econ_series.

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 implies usage: search to find series, then use get_econ_series to fetch data. It notes it's free and no key needed, encouraging use. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide direct alternatives.

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