Liquidez neta de la Reserva Federal

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: the exact data source (FRED), the units (billions), and the composition of the metric. It does not mention update frequency, data lag, or rate limits, so this is solid but not rich.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the formula and then adds horizon and source. Every clause carries information (formula, units, windows, source) with no filler. Slightly dense but efficient.

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 one-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description is nearly self-sufficient: it explains the computation, units, horizons, and source. The remaining gap is sibling differentiation against other liquidity tools, which leaves some ambiguity despite the otherwise complete spec.

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 coverage is 100% and the single 'weeks' parameter is documented in the schema itself. The description mentions 4/13/52-week variations and weekly history, which loosely contextualizes the history window, but adds no syntax or constraint detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 for a well-covered single-parameter tool.

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 precise verb+resource: it computes net Fed liquidity via an explicit formula (WALCL − TGA − RRP) in billions from FRED. This is far more specific than the name alone. However, it does not distinguish itself from overlapping siblings such as get_liquidity_overview or get_macro_liquidity_history, which likely cover similar ground.

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?

There is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance. Given the crowded sibling set (get_liquidity_overview, get_macro_liquidity_history, get_crypto_liquidity), an agent has no signal about which liquidity tool to pick. Usage is only implied by the formula content.

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