get_latest_forecast

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior itself. It adds 'paid' and 'published', which imply a read-only, paid retrieval rather than a custom run. But it omits authentication needs, rate limits, and details about the forecast's nature (e.g., horizon or output).

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, front-loaded sentence delivers the core purpose and the paid constraint with no filler. Every word 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 tool with no output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete: it does not explain the return format, valid symbol/timeframe conventions beyond examples, or whether a forecast always exists. Sibling differentiation is implied but not explicit.

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 descriptions cover both parameters 100%, providing examples. The description only repeats 'symbol + timeframe' without adding meaning, so it is redundant and does not surpass the schema's baseline.

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 latest published price forecast for a symbol and timeframe, which is specific and distinct from fee/gas forecasts. However, it does not explicitly compare with sibling tools, so it misses the top score.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like run_custom_forecast, get_eth_gas_forecast, or get_ercot_price_forecast. The description only defines what it does, leaving usage context unaddressed.

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