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 declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds that it returns "the recorded daily series and latest values," which is useful return-shape context, but says nothing about data recency, update cadence, or pagination. One extra sentence of context against a solid annotation baseline earns a 3.

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 sentences, zero filler, with the triggering condition front-loaded before the return description. Every clause earns its place.

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 read-only, no-required-param series tool with no output schema, the description covers both trigger and return shape, which is nearly everything an agent needs. Minor gaps remain around data freshness and whether results are aggregate or per-metric, keeping it just under a 5.

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?

With a single parameter and 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents the 30-4000 range, the 365 default, and the clamping behavior. The description mentions no parameter detail at all, so it adds nothing beyond the schema; baseline 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?

States a clear verb (get) and enumerates the specific series returned: Fed balance sheet, reverse repo, rates, stablecoin supply, tied to crypto. The title reinforces the scope. It is distinguishable from generic siblings like get_series and get_tradfi_board, though it does not explicitly name a sibling it differs from.

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?

"Call this when the user asks about macro liquidity, the Fed balance sheet, reverse repo, rates or stablecoin supply in relation to crypto" gives explicit triggering conditions. It stops short of naming an alternative tool or stating when NOT to use it, so it lands at a clear-context 4 rather than a full routing 5.

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