trm_series

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses important behavior: inclusive dates, a 5-year maximum span, and that both summary and raw series are returned. It does not mention operational caveats such as output ordering, error cases, or whether the operation is strictly read-only, though that is strongly implied.

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 compact and well-organized with an Args section and a Returns note. Every sentence contributes meaningful information without redundancy or unnecessary filler.

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 two-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is complete: it explains the date range semantics, max span, and return structure. The mention of charting without a second round trip gives useful purpose context without requiring additional detail.

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 compensate. It fully documents both parameters with ISO format, inclusivity, and the 5-year constraint, adding substantial meaning beyond the bare schema properties.

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 that the tool returns rates over a period with min, max, average, and change, which clearly identifies the resource and output. It does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like get_trm, so it lacks full sibling differentiation.

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 clear usage context: it is for rates over a date range and returns the raw series so callers can chart without a second request. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, but the context is reasonably clear.

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