Quantamentry

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly names the returned fields and also states what is NOT available in the free tier (underlying dimensions, executive summary, 90-day history). This gives strong transparency about payload scope and tier limitations, though it doesn't discuss errors, auth, or data freshness beyond 'score date'.

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 tight sentences. The first leads with the action and then enumerates the exact return fields in a colon-separated list; the second usefully states what is excluded. No filler or repetition of schema info.

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 single-param, no-output-schema tool, the description is effectively an output contract: it lists all returned components and explicitly flags excluded fields. An agent can select and call this tool with confidence on a first attempt.

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% and the schema already fully describes the iso parameter with an example. The description adds no new parameter-level meaning, so it earns the baseline of 3 without needing to compensate.

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 a specific verb ('Get') and an exact resource: one country's public sovereign-credibility reading, followed by a detailed list of included fields. The singular 'one country' clearly separates it from list_countries, and the 'reading' focus separates it from get_latest_briefing.

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?

Clearly describes the context: use it when you want a single country's sovereign-credibility reading with specific metrics. It does not explicitly say 'use get_latest_briefing for briefings' or 'use list_countries to enumerate countries,' but the one-country framing and the list of returned fields provide clear usage context without exclusions.

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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses the publication cadence (every Monday), the content granularity (score movements and driving dimensions), and the access condition (free to read). For a zero-parameter read tool, this is meaningful context beyond the tool's name.

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, no wasted words. The main purpose is front-loaded, followed by detail on content and availability. Every clause earns its place.

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, no-argument informational tool, the description fully covers what the briefing contains, when it is available, and that it is free. No output schema or parameters exist, so nothing essential is missing.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema confirms an empty object, so there are no parameter semantics to document. The baseline of 4 applies because there is nothing the description needs to compensate for.

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 names a specific resource (current weekly briefing) and a clear action (get in full), then elaborates exactly what the briefing contains: which sovereign credibility scores moved, by how much, and which dimension drove each move. This clearly differentiates it from siblings get_country and list_countries.

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 gives clear usage context: the briefing is weekly, published every Monday, and free to read. It implies when the tool is useful and that no special access is needed, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools or say when not to use it.

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?

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure. It explains the free-tier limitation (credibility band only, no composite scores or deltas) and the treatment of thin-data monitored countries. This is meaningful behavioral context, though it could have been slightly more explicit about output shape or ordering behavior.

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 compact, with no filler. The first sentence delivers the core purpose and ranking, the second adds the tier limitation, and the third points to a sibling tool. Every sentence earns its place and the structure is front-loaded.

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 zero-parameter listing tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, order, exclusions, tier constraints, and the correct alternative for single-country data. There is no missing information an agent would reasonably need to invoke or interpret this 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so schema coverage is complete by definition. The description adds no parameter-specific detail because there are none; the baseline of 4 applies. It still informs what the output will contain, which is relevant to expected usage.

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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('every country Quantamentry scores'), adds the ranking criterion and explicitly calls out the monitored-country exception. It is easily distinguishable from get_country (single country) and get_latest_briefing (briefing), so an agent can select it without opening the schema.

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 clearly indicates when to use the tool: when you need the full list of countries in rank order. It also points to the alternative get_country for single-country lookups, and qualifies the free-tier behavior. This gives an agent explicit routing guidance.

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