Get latest commodity rates

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

Without annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that rates may lag up to 10 minutes depending on plan, which is a key behavioral trait. It also notes the Premium/Plus-only restriction for quote conversion. It does not describe error handling or response format, but the disclosed lag and plan restrictions add meaningful transparency.

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-loading the primary purpose and then adding relevant caveats (lag, quote usage). Every sentence provides value and there is no redundancy or filler.

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 description covers the core function, data freshness caveat, and plan-based restriction, while also pointing to the sibling list_symbols tool for valid inputs. It does not describe the return format or error handling, but given the tool's simplicity and the explicit reference to related tools, this is reasonably complete.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description's mention of 'gold, silver, crude oil' provides real-world context but the schema already includes concrete example symbols. The quote parameter's plan restriction is already in the schema description, so the description adds minimal additional semantic value 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 uses a specific verb+resource construction: 'Returns the latest rates for one or more commodity symbols.' It clearly identifies the tool's scope (latest rates, multiple symbols) and provides examples (gold, silver, crude oil), making it easy to distinguish from siblings like get_historical_rates and get_fluctuation.

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 references the list_symbols tool for valid values and mentions the quote parameter's plan restriction, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like get_gold_price or get_time_series. Usage context is implied by 'latest rates' but no when-not-to-use guidance is given.

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