futures_category_snapshot

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

Annotations already declare read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful transparency by specifying that it returns OHLCV quotes for front-month contracts from a standard watchlist, with example symbols. This goes beyond the safety profile.

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 well-structured with Args and Returns sections, front-loads the main purpose, and every sentence adds value, including examples. It is appropriately sized with no fluff.

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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it documents the parameter values, the return format (OHLCV), and the scope (front-month, standard watchlist). The example symbols further clarify expected output.

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 only defines an unconstrained string with a default, and has 0% schema description coverage. The description compensates fully by listing all acceptable category values and providing example output symbols, effectively giving enum-like guidance.

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 clearly states that the tool quotes all major front-month contracts in a specific futures category. It lists valid categories and provides example symbols, making it distinct from sibling tools like futures_market_overview or futures_watchlist.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: when needing quotes for a specific futures category, with an explicit list of categories. However, it does not mention alternative tools or specific exclusion scenarios, so it lacks full comparative guidance.

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