get_current_power_price

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond the annotations: it specifies data sources (NordPool, hvakosterstrommen.no, ENTSO-E), the unit (EUR/kWh), and the dynamic behavior of the 'tomorrow' field (returns 'not yet available' before 13:00 CET). The annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint) are consistent with this read and variable-data nature.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage guidelines, timing, and data source details. Each sentence provides unique, essential information without redundancy. Despite five sentences, it remains efficient and well-organized.

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 moderate complexity (2 parameters, output schema exists, annotations present), the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, usage boundaries, timing constraints, data sources, units, and zone-specific behavior. The presence of an output schema relieves the description from explaining return values, making it fully 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?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds value by explaining zone-specific data sources (Norwegian zones use hvakosterstrommen.no, others use ENTSO-E), which contextualizes the 'zone' parameter beyond the schema's simple list. This extra information slightly exceeds the baseline of 3.

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 starts with 'Fetch today's hourly day-ahead electricity spot prices for a Nordic bidding zone,' which clearly states the verb ('fetch'), resource ('prices'), and scope ('today's hourly day-ahead'). It distinguishes from the sibling 'search_filings' by explicitly stating when not to use this tool and directing to the alternative for historical analysis.

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 states when to use the tool ('current and near-term queries') and when not to ('historical analysis'), providing a clear alternative ('use search_filings with report_type='macro_summary''). It also includes timing constraints for tomorrow's prices (published after 13:00 CET) and the resulting behavior when not available.

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