Calculate Asset Energy Revenue

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds useful behavioral detail beyond annotations: the join methodology, the inclusive/exclusive interval behavior, and the promise of explicit missing intervals, which is important for a calculation tool that might silently drop data.

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-structured: it opens with the core join, lists the key output metrics, and finishes with a concise caveat. Every sentence earns its place without restating the tool name or repeating the schema verbosely.

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 computation tool with a rich input schema, an output schema, and safety annotations, the description is largely complete. It names the calculation inputs, the outputs, missing-interval handling, and the key settlement caveat. It could slightly improve by distinguishing itself from calculate_capture_prices, but that is more usage guidance than core completeness.

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 100%, with the input schema already documenting start/end date-time behavior and asset_ids selection. The description reinforces that the operation is a join by selected asset over [start, end), but it adds little parameter-level meaning not already present in the schema.

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 operation — joining hourly metered energy by asset with hourly AESO Pool Price — and specifies the returned metrics (gross revenue, capture price, capture rate, matched hours, missing intervals). It also explicitly delimits its scope with 'This is not total settlement revenue,' which distinguishes it from settlement-related siblings.

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 a clear use case — calculating Pool Price energy revenue from matched metered and price data — and provides an explicit exclusion by stating it is not total settlement revenue. However, it does not specify when to choose this tool over nearby alternatives such as calculate_capture_prices or get_monthly_cumulative_net_revenue, so usage routing remains partially inferred.

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