cot

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses row ordering (newest week first), units (contracts), and a tier constraint (free tier limited to the last 12 months). It omits pagination, rate limits, and what happens if market/code are both omitted, which is a real gap for a zero-required-param tool.

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?

Dense and front-loaded: the dataset definition comes first, then the recommended usage, then report meanings, then behavioral notes. Slightly long sentences with embedded clauses, but no filler text.

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 5-param tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no schema descriptions, the description covers a lot but leaves the start/end date parameters and the semantics of calling with no market/code at all undefined. There is no way to know the default result scope of a no-argument call.

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 description coverage is 0% across 5 params, so the description must compensate. It does for market (a word from the market name), report (three enumerated values with column semantics), and code (delegated to cot_markets), but start and end are never mentioned at all, leaving two parameters entirely unexplained.

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?

Names a specific dataset (CFTC Commitments of Traders), its cadence (weekly), its shape (long/short/net contracts by trader group) and its domain (futures markets). It also names the sibling cot_markets as the lookup path, so an agent can separate the two without opening either schema.

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?

Gives a concrete recommended invocation (market="gold" with report="legacy_fo"), names valid report alternatives (disagg_fo, tff_fo), explains what each column family means, and routes exact-code lookups to cot_markets(query=...). When-to-use and the alternative are both explicit.

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