opa_get_spread

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While it mentions the paid plan requirement, it does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only, destructive, or other behavioral traits such as rate limits or data freshness. The description implies a read operation but lacks explicit transparency.

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 incredibly concise at two sentences, with no wasted words. Critical information (what it does, when to use, prerequisites) is front-loaded in the first sentence, making it efficient for an AI agent to parse.

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's simplicity (single parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the main aspects: purpose, usage, and prerequisites. However, it does not describe the output format or structure, which would help the agent set user expectations. Overall, it is nearly complete for a straightforward tool.

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 provides 100% coverage (the 'type' parameter with description and enum), and the description adds significant value by explaining what each enum value means (e.g., 'crack (refining crack spread, e.g. 3-2-1)') and the real-world context of the spreads, going beyond the schema's brief descriptions.

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's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and enumerates the resource types (crack spreads, basis spreads, margins). It distinguishes itself from 26 sibling tools, none of which focus on spreads, so the agent can easily identify when to use this tool.

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 when to use the tool ('when the user asks about crack spreads, 3-2-1 crack, refining margins, basis differentials, or blend/transport margins') and includes a prerequisite ('Requires a paid plan with energy intelligence access'), providing clear guidance on usage context and limitations.

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