get_market_indices

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states a simple retrieval operation with no side effects, which is transparent enough. However, it lacks details like return format, data freshness, or authentication needs. A 3 is adequate.

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?

A single, clear sentence with no unnecessary words. It is immediately understandable and front-loaded with the key action and objects.

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?

For a simple zero-parameter tool with no output schema or annotations, the description adequately conveys the tool's purpose. It could be enhanced by explaining what PUN and PSV stand for or the output format, but it is sufficient for its complexity.

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 tool has zero parameters. According to guidelines, baseline is 4. The description adds no further parameter information beyond the schema, which is acceptable given no parameters exist.

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 explicitly states the verb 'Recupera' and specifies the exact resources: PUN (Electricity) and PSV (Gas) market indices. This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like 'calculate_energy_savings' or 'get_available_offers'.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. However, the sibling tools have distinct purposes, so usage context is implied. A 3 is appropriate as there is no when-not or alternative mention.

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