get_fed_watch

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states what the tool does, without disclosing any behavioral traits such as read-only nature, authentication requirements, rate limits, or data freshness. For a data retrieval tool, this lack of transparency is a significant gap.

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 very concise (one line) and front-loaded with the tool name. However, it is under-informative; it could benefit from a brief explanation of what each view returns. The conciseness comes at the cost of completeness.

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 simplicity of the tool (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally complete. It states the purpose and the two views. However, it lacks details about the output data format, typical response structure, or any example, which would help the agent set expectations. It meets the baseline but does not excel.

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 schema has 100% enum coverage for the single parameter, but schema description coverage is 0%. The description mentions the two views ('target_rate' and 'dot_plot') but does not explain their meanings or what data they retrieve. For example, 'target_rate' gives interest rate probabilities; 'dot_plot' provides FOMC dot plot projections. Without this context, the agent cannot infer the parameter semantics beyond the enum names.

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 identifies the tool as a CME FedWatch tool providing target rate probability or dot plot data. It specifies the two views, distinguishing it from sibling tools which are not FedWatch related. However, it could be more explicit about what exactly is returned (e.g., probabilities, dot plot points) and the verb (get) is implied rather than stated.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It is implied that the tool should be used when FedWatch data is needed, but there is no mention of alternative tools or conditions for using a different tool. This is acceptable given no direct sibling competitor, but minimal guidance.

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