futures_quote

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Get a futures contract quote' – implying a read operation but giving no detail about the response format, potential errors, rate limits, or what data fields are included. The agent cannot anticipate whether the quote includes bid/ask, volume, or the exact structure of the return.

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, concise sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded with the core action. While it is minimal, it is appropriately sized for such a simple tool. It does not waste words, though it could benefit from a bit more context without becoming verbose.

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 tool has a simple interface (one parameter, no output schema), but the description is too sparse to be complete. It omits any explanation of what the quote contains (e.g., price, change, volume), whether it returns real-time or delayed data, or any usage caveats. Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description should provide more context to guide the agent, but it provides only the barest statement of function.

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 schema description coverage is 100% for the single parameter, with 'ticker' documented as 'Futures ticker (e.g., 'ALI', 'M6A')'. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond that. Per the rubric, with high schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate, and the description does not compensate with extra parameter context (such as ticker format rules or how to obtain valid tickers).

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 uses a specific verb ('get') and resource ('futures contract quote'), clearly indicating the tool returns a quote for a single futures contract. It distinguishes from sibling quote tools like etf_quote or crypto_quote by naming the asset class, and from other futures tools like futures_prices (which likely returns a list) by the word 'quote'. However, it does not explicitly differentiate between futures_quote and futures_prices beyond that implication.

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_prices, futures_tickers, or the myriad other quote tools. No mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing a ticker from futures_tickers) or when a list might be more appropriate. The agent is left to infer usage from the one-line summary.

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