futures_category_snapshot

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 states the tool returns OHLCV quotes, implying a read-only operation, but does not discuss potential side effects, authentication needs, or rate limits. The description is adequate but lacks depth.

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 well-structured with a clear first sentence defining the purpose, followed by Args and Returns sections. It is concise but could be slightly tighter (e.g., the example symbols list, while helpful, adds length). Overall, it earns its brevity.

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 the tool's simplicity (one parameter, returns OHLCV quotes), the description covers purpose, parameters, and return type without needing an output schema. It lacks details on pagination or limits, but for a snapshot tool this is acceptable.

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 enumerates valid categories (equity_index, energy, etc.) and provides example symbols, adding significant meaning beyond the schema's minimal 'string' type. However, it does not specify the default value or format expectations beyond examples.

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 that the tool quotes all major front-month contracts in a specific futures category, with the verb 'quote' and resource 'futures category snapshot'. It provides a clear list of categories and example symbols. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'futures_market_overview' or 'futures_watchlist', which could have similar purposes.

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 implies usage when needing OHLCV quotes for a category of futures, but it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusions or preferred contexts are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool's name and description alone.

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