gold_price

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose the data provenance (COMEX futures plus live FX) and what the returned number represents. That is meaningful. It says nothing about rate limits, caching/freshness guarantees, or failure behavior for unsupported currency codes, which matters for a live-quote tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

Three sentences, all load-bearing: what it returns, where the numbers come from, and the optional history add-on. The core resource and currency format are front-loaded, and there is no filler or repetition.

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?

An output schema exists, so return structure needn't be described, and all three parameters are optional, lowering the risk of a wrong call. Coverage of currency format, units, karats, provenance and history is solid; the only real gap is the semantics of the history_range enum and the default behavior when currencies is omitted.

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 add real meaning for `currencies` by specifying ISO codes and giving examples (AED, INR, SAR, PKR, USD), and "optional daily history" implies the include_history/history_range pair. It never explains the history_range enum values, the default currency set, or whether multiple currencies return a combined payload, so compensation is partial.

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 names a specific resource and scope: live gold and silver prices in any ISO currency, across ounce/gram/kilo/tola/10-gram units and five karat grades. That is far more precise than a title restatement. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings, but no sibling (jobs, property transactions, product listings, web search) overlaps, so differentiation is moot rather than missing.

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 parenthetical "market price, before jewellers' making charges" is a genuine exclusion that tells the agent this is not retail jewellery pricing, which is the most likely misuse. "Optional daily history" signals when to reach for the history parameters. No explicit when-to-use or alternative tool is named, keeping it below a 5.

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