cbd_market_data

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'temps reel' (real-time) and 'marche du CBD francais' (French market), indicating scope and timeliness. However, it omits critical traits such as read-only nature, authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what happens when no data is found.

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 extremely concise: two sentences in French. The first sentence defines the tool's core functionality, and the second provides concrete usage examples. No unnecessary words or redundancy.

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 output schema and no annotations, the description covers the tool's purpose and trigger phrases but lacks details on return format, error behavior, or data freshness. It is minimally adequate for an agent to infer usage but incomplete for safe autonomous invocation without additional documentation.

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 80%, so baseline is 3. The description does not elaborate on parameter meanings beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., action enum values, variety list). It adds no additional semantic value to the parameters, so the score remains at 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 clearly states the tool provides real-time French CBD market data, including average prices, ranges, trends, comparisons, and price checks. It gives example queries that illustrate the purpose. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like cbd_guide or recommend_cbd_for_me, though the name 'market_data' and context make the distinction clear.

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 provides explicit usage contexts: 'Utilisez quand on demande...' with example queries for prices, price checks, and trends. However, it does not mention when not to use this tool or recommend alternative siblings. The guidance is clear but lacks exclusion criteria.

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