forecast_next

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states that the range adapts to recent volatility and stays valid with shifts, but does not disclose how many values are needed, what model is used, or what happens with insufficient data. No mention of errors or limitations.

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 very concise, consisting of two sentences. It is front-loaded with the key question. However, the use of a question format might be less direct for an AI agent. No redundant information.

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 input schema but no output schema. The description is incomplete because it does not specify the structure of the output (e.g., object with 'prediction' and 'range' fields). It also lacks guidance on edge cases like very short history or extreme volatility. For a forecasting tool, more detail is needed.

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 clear descriptions for both 'values' and 'nominal'. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. Given high coverage, baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 question to state the tool's purpose: predicting next reading and range. It mentions adapting to volatility, which hints at a unique feature. However, it does not explicitly state 'forecast' or 'predict' as a verb, and could be more direct. It distinguishes well from sibling tools which have different focuses.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, data requirements, or scenarios where other tools like 'score_forecasts' or 'did_it_change' would be better suited. The description only implies use for forecasting, but lacks comparative context.

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