Latest bar

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and openWorld behavior, so the main behavioral gap is lower. The description adds useful auth context by stating that TILLA_API_KEY is required, but it does not describe error behavior, rate limits, or return characteristics.

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 two short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The core purpose appears first, followed immediately by the API-key requirement.

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?

This is a simple read tool with annotations, but the schema has 0% description coverage and there is no output schema. The description leaves the layer parameter undocumented and does not explain what a returned bar contains, which leaves meaningful gaps for correct invocation.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It mentions the named series and one lane, which maps to two parameters, but it says nothing about the layer parameter, its default, or allowed values.

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 states a specific resource and scope: the newest bar of a named series on one lane. It clearly identifies a read operation and avoids tautology, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings such as tilla_window or tilla_sample.

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 gives only a prerequisite (TILLA_API_KEY) and does not say when to use this tool versus siblings like tilla_window, tilla_sample, or tilla_tick. No when-not-to-use guidance or alternative selection criteria are provided.

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