cot_markets

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose meaningful traits: the default report (legacy_fo), the shape of each result (name and code), and a real constraint — free-tier dated COT history is limited to the last 12 months. It omits pagination, rate limits, and whether markets vary by report, so it is not exhaustive.

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?

Front-loads what the tool returns, then filtering, then the hand-off to 'cot', then the tier caveat. Four compact clauses with no filler or redundancy.

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?

Covers output contents, parameter usage, downstream tool routing, and a tier limitation — enough for an agent to call and use the result despite no output schema or annotations. The missing enumeration of valid 'report' values is the one notable gap.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does well for 'query' by giving concrete examples ('gold', 's&p 500', 'crude') that clarify matching behavior, and it names the default for 'report'; however, it never enumerates valid report values, so an agent can only safely use the default.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('list of futures markets available in the Commitments of Traders data') and specifies what each entry contains (name and code), which distinguishes it clearly from the sibling 'cot' tool that consumes its output.

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?

Tells the agent to pass 'query' to filter by market name and explicitly routes downstream work to the 'cot' tool using the returned code/market, which is a concrete usage flow. It does not state when to choose this over 'cot' directly or when a non-default report is appropriate, so no explicit exclusions.

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