Fetch real-time and historical sugar commodity price data for market analysis and financial tracking.
Fetch sugar
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "sugar"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| interval | No | ||
| datatype | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. 'Fetch sugar' implies a read-only operation but doesn't specify data sources, rate limits, authentication needs, or output format. It lacks any behavioral context beyond the basic verb, failing to compensate for missing annotations.
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 extremely concise ('Fetch sugar'), which is front-loaded but under-specified. While not verbose, it lacks necessary detail, making brevity a detriment rather than a virtue. It earns a middle score for structure but loses points for inadequate content.
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 the tool's complexity (2 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema, and many sibling tools), the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'sugar' is, how to use parameters, or what to expect in return, failing to provide minimal context for effective use.
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 0%, with two parameters ('interval', 'datatype') undocumented in the schema. The description adds no parameter information, not even hinting at what 'sugar' data might require. It fails to compensate for the low coverage, leaving parameters entirely unexplained.
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 'Fetch sugar' restates the tool name 'sugar' with a generic verb 'fetch', making it tautological. It doesn't specify what resource 'sugar' refers to (e.g., sugar commodity prices, sugar-related data) or distinguish it from sibling tools like 'coffee' or 'wheat', leaving the purpose vague.
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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools for commodities (e.g., 'coffee', 'corn') and financial data, the description offers no context, prerequisites, or exclusions, making it misleadingly simplistic.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.