Get Price Forecasts

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description adds that the tool returns forecast data and requires a paid plan. This provides behavioral context beyond the annotations, such as the source and access restrictions. No contradictions are present.

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 four sentences, each delivering unique value: source, use case, return type, and requirement. It is front-loaded with the core action and contains no redundant information.

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 no parameters, output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description provides sufficient context: source, use case, access requirement. It lacks details on time horizon or specific commodities, but for a straightforward forecast tool, it 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?

The input schema has zero parameters, so the description doesn't need to add parameter details. Baseline 4 is appropriate as the description cannot add value for parameters that don't exist.

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 states that this tool fetches energy price forecasts from EIA STEO and other sources, with explicit use cases for price predictions and outlooks. It effectively distinguishes itself from siblings like opa_get_price and opa_get_futures, which serve different purposes.

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 says 'Use when the user asks about price predictions, outlooks, or where oil/gas prices are heading,' providing explicit context. It also notes the paid plan requirement. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use this tool or suggest alternatives, which would improve the score further.

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