Get Futures Price

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, but the description adds valuable context: front-month only, supported commodity aliases, and a Professional plan requirement ($99/mo). This goes beyond the annotations' basic safety profile.

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 five sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose. Each sentence serves a distinct function: definition, use context, commodity mapping, alternative tool, and access requirement. It is slightly longer than minimal but still concise.

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?

The tool has no output schema, but the description implies the return type (price) and covers supported contracts, the alternative for full curves, and access restrictions. Given the single optional parameter and good annotations, this is sufficient.

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 fully documents the 'contract' parameter with an enum and detailed descriptions (100% coverage). The tool description repeats the alias mapping but does not add new syntax or format details, so it stays at the baseline.

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 begins with a specific verb-plus-resource statement: 'Get the latest front-month futures contract price for energy commodities.' It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling tool opa_get_futures_curve by limiting to front-month, avoiding ambiguity.

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 explicitly states 'Use when the user asks about futures, forward prices, or contract prices' and provides an exclusion: 'For the full forward curve across all contract months, use opa_get_futures_curve instead.' This gives clear when-to-use and alternative guidance.

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