MetalTakip Digest

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

The description adds a meaningful behavioral trait beyond the annotations: it states that only first-party content is provided ('Yalnız birinci taraf içerik sunulur'). The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the description enhances transparency by specifying the content scope.

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, consisting of two sentences. The first sentence clearly states the primary action and its prerequisite, while the second adds an important constraint. No unnecessary words or fluff.

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?

For a simple tool with one required parameter, clear annotations, and an output schema present, the description is complete. It covers the purpose, usage context (post-search), and a key constraint (first-party only). The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values.

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 input schema already describes the 'id' parameter as the article ID from search results (100% coverage). The tool description essentially repeats this information without providing additional meaning or context for the parameter. As per rules, baseline is 3 when schema coverage is high.

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: it retrieves the full text of a MetalTakip article using an ID from a previous search result. It also distinguishes from siblings by specifying that it provides first-party content only, contrasting with search which returns IDs and other tools like gunluk_ozet and turev_gostergeler which serve different functions.

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 indicates that the tool should be used with an ID obtained from the search tool ('search sonucundaki id ile'), providing clear usage context. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or compare it to alternatives, which prevents a score of 5.

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 and openWorldHint=false. The description adds value by disclosing return content (title, summary, link), source attribution, and non-personalization, which are beyond annotation scope.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the key action and resource. Every word contributes meaning, with no wasted text.

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 input schema, no output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description provides sufficient context about what is returned and its characteristics. Minor gap: no mention of output format or when to use vs siblings, but adequate overall.

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?

With zero parameters, the schema coverage is 100% and no additional parameter meaning is needed. The description does not add param info, but baseline for 0 params is 4, and no contradiction.

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 returns the most up-to-date Turkish market analysis (title, summary, link) and derived market indicators from MetalTakip. It uses specific verbs and nouns, making the purpose unambiguous and distinct from siblings.

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 use when needing the latest Turkish market summary with derived indicators, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings like 'fetch', 'search', or 'turev_gostergeler'. No exclusions or alternatives are provided.

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 value by clarifying the scope (only first-party content). No contradictory information; behavior is transparent for a read-only search tool.

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 action, and every sentence is meaningful. No redundancy or unnecessary 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?

For a simple search tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description adequately covers the scope and source. It could mention query language or format, but overall is 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 'query', which is described in the schema. The tool description does not add any extra meaning or examples beyond what the schema provides.

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 in MetalTakip's own Turkish analysis and research articles, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying it only returns first-party content, not third-party news.

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: use for searching first-party content only. It implicitly excludes third-party news, but does not explicitly compare with sibling tools like fetch or gunluk_ozet.

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 supply readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds provenance (MetalTakip-computed) and an explicit exclusion (no raw third-party data), going beyond the bare annotation. It does not disclose update frequency or output structure, but for a no-parameter read-only tool this is acceptable.

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 front-loads the core definition, lists the concrete indicators, and ends with a crisp exclusion. No filler or repeated title.

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 tool takes no parameters and has a read-only annotation; the description's enumeration of the returned series gives an agent enough to decide whether to call it. It could mention update cadence or units, but the absence is not critical for a simple zero-parameter resource.

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 schema has zero parameters, so there is nothing to document. Baseline 4 applies; the description adds no parameter details because none are needed.

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 resource as derived market indicators computed by MetalTakip and enumerates specific series (physical/digital/quarter gold premiums, annual changes in official monthly flows). It signals it is not raw third-party data, which separates it from fetch/search, though it lacks an explicit action verb and does not name sibling tools directly.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use statement or alternative routing. The 'does not contain raw third-party data' clause implies this is for derived/premium figures rather than raw data, but it never names fetch, search, or gunluk_ozet or states when to prefer them.

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