futures_watchlist

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the behavior is safe/read-only. The description adds that it returns the 'full categorized list' of 'well-known' symbols, giving insight into the scope and nature of the data, which goes beyond the annotation metadata.

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 two concise sentences. The first states the core function, and the second lists categories and provides usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is fully adequate. It states what is returned, the categories included, and suggests next steps for deeper analysis. No important information is missing.

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 tool has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (effectively complete). No parameter explanation is needed, so the baseline of 4 applies.

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 the tool returns a full categorized list of well-known front-month futures symbols. It uses a specific verb ('return') and resource ('futures symbols'), and distinguishes itself from sibling analysis tools by being a list/symbol source.

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 it: as a source of symbols for deeper analysis with futures_category_snapshot or coin_analysis. It names alternatives and suggests follow-up usage, though it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it compared to other market overview tools.

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