Macro liquidity: Fed funds, 10y, balance sheet, RRP, stablecoin supply

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

Annotations already include readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description does not contradict them. It adds useful return behavior by stating it 'Returns the recorded daily series and latest values,' which partially compensates for the missing output schema, though it leaves out details like units or time coverage.

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?

Two tight sentences: the first gives usage guidance, the second states the return behavior. There is no filler, and the title adds complementary detail without bloating the description.

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?

Given a single optional parameter, read-only annotations, and no output schema, the description provides enough for an agent to decide when to call the tool and roughly what to expect in return. It could briefly mention sample data fields or coverage, but the tool is simple enough that this is not a critical gap.

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 documents the only parameter, days, completely with type, min, max, and default. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies because the schema carries the semantic weight.

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 trigger phrase ('Call this when the user asks about macro liquidity, the Fed balance sheet, reverse repo, rates or stablecoin supply') and clearly identifies the resource: recorded daily macro liquidity series with latest values. The title further enumerates the exact components (Fed funds, 10y, balance sheet, RRP, stablecoin supply), distinguishing it from sibling tools that cover price, flows, or sentiment.

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 gives explicit conditions for when to call the tool, listing concrete user topics such as macro liquidity, Fed balance sheet, reverse repo, rates, and stablecoin supply in relation to crypto. It does not mention specific alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios, but the trigger list is clear enough to route an agent correctly.

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