Read supply, allocated, utilized

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

The description adds an important caveat that this is 'a model, not live telemetry,' which helps set expectations about data freshness and accuracy. However, with no annotations provided, it does not explicitly disclose side effects (or lack thereof) or other behavioral details such as latency or consistency.

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 only two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and ending with a useful caveat. Every word earns its place; no unnecessary fluff.

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 zero-parameter read-only snapshot, the description covers the main output areas and adds the 'model, not live telemetry' caveat. It could be slightly clearer about what the 'three numbers' are, but the title fills that gap, making it reasonably 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?

The tool accepts no parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description provides enough context about what the snapshot reports without needing parameter explanations.

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 title and description clearly indicate a read-only market state snapshot, naming specific data points (supply, allocated, utilized, matching/scheduling gaps). It is distinct from the simulation and proof request siblings, though it does not explicitly name an alternative for comparison.

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 guidance is given for when to use this tool versus the sibling tools. The description implies a status-check use case but does not state when to prefer it over simulate_coordination or poll_proof.

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