Get Futures Curve

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds useful context: returns a 'table of contract months with settlement prices, plus market structure analysis' and reveals the plan requirement. However, it doesn't detail pagination or response size limits, but for a read-only data retrieval tool with good annotations, this is sufficient.

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 informative: purpose, usage context, supported instruments, and return contents. No fluff, no repetition of schema enum values (the description uses readable commodity names while the schema has codes). Front-loaded with the main purpose.

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 the tool has one optional parameter, a complete enum, and no output schema, the description covers the key aspects: what it returns, when to use it, supported contracts, and a plan restriction. The only minor gap is not mentioning the output format details beyond 'table', but with simple inputs and no nested schema, this is adequately 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the enum descriptions are thorough, mapping each code to its commodity. The description adds value by listing supported commodities in prose, but the schema already provides full parameter meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 the tool returns the full futures forward curve across all contract months, with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('full futures forward curve'). It distinguishes from siblings like opa_get_futures by emphasizing 'forward curve, contango/backwardation, or term structure', which is a unique scope.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'when the user asks about the forward curve, contango/backwardation, or term structure'. Also lists supported commodities and contract codes, and notes the Professional plan requirement, which helps the agent decide if this tool is appropriate.

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