futures_prices

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states a generic action without revealing important behaviors like return format (time series), error handling, or any constraints (e.g., date range limits). For a read operation, this is a considerable gap, though the lack of destructive behavior is 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 a single, direct sentence that efficiently states the core function with no redundancy or filler. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

The description is minimal for a historical price tool. It does not mention that the output is a time series, clarifies ticker format, or indicates default date ranges. With no output schema and no annotations, an agent only gets the basic idea, which is sufficient for a simple read operation but lacks detail that could prevent misuse or misinterpretation.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with each parameter (to, from, frame, ticker) documented inline. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate. No compensation is needed given the full schema coverage.

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 the verb 'Get' and the resource 'historical price data for a futures contract,' which clearly indicates the tool's purpose. It differentiates from sibling tools like futures_quote (likely current price) and other asset price tools by specifying 'futures.' However, it does not mention the specific format of the historical data (e.g., OHLCV), which is a minor gap.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as futures_quote or similar price tools for other asset classes. With a large sibling list, the lack of usage context makes it harder for an agent to select the correct tool, especially without any mention of distinctions like quote vs. historical data.

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