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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so safety is covered. The description adds material context the annotations do not: a concrete price of $0.75 USDC per call via x402 on Base or Solana, which matters for agent cost decisions, plus the shape of the return payload. It omits freshness/staleness or update cadence of the indicators.

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?

Three short sentences: what it returns, what the key field is for, and what else comes back, with pricing last. No filler and the most decision-relevant information 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?

No output schema exists, yet the description enumerates the returned fields (brief, structured series, FX, derived, signals) and the intended use of the primary field. With zero parameters, there is nothing else an agent needs in order to call this 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?

The tool takes zero parameters and the description correctly makes no parameter claims, so there is nothing to mis-specify. Baseline 4 applies for a no-arg tool.

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 and resource: returns a pre-formatted natural-language paragraph summarizing 15+ named indicator domains (rates, inflation, employment, mortgage, energy, FX). It is clearly distinguishable from the narrower single-series siblings like get_series or get_fx_rate_current, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

Useful context is implied by 'ready to inject directly into an LLM prompt as economic context', which tells the agent the intended consumption pattern. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use vs. when-to-use-a-sibling guidance (e.g., bundle vs. individual series calls) and no exclusions.

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