cftc_cot_cit

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares the tool safe for read operations. The description adds useful context about the report type (Supplemental CIT), its relationship to the Legacy report, and the market scope limitation. However, it does not disclose pagination behavior, date ranges, or what fields are returned, though the schema covers pagination parameters.

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 sentences, front-loaded with a clear verb and resource, and each sentence adds value: the first explains what the tool gets, the second explains the scope and relationship to the Legacy report. No wasted words or 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (3 optional params, no output schema, read-only annotation), the description adequately covers the essential context: what the data is, its relationship to the Legacy report, and its limited market coverage. It does not detail return fields, but for this type of simple data-retrieval tool, that is acceptable.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds contextual information about market coverage but does not provide additional detail about the specific parameters (limit, offset, market_name) beyond what the schema already describes. It neither improves nor harms parameter understanding.

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 retrieves Supplemental Commodity Index Trader (CIT) report data from CFTC, identifies it as a supplement to the Legacy report, and notes it covers only 13 agricultural markets. This distinguishes it from sibling CFTC tools like cftc_cot_legacy, cftc_cot_disaggregated, and cftc_cot_tff.

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 by positioning the tool as a supplement to the Legacy report and explicitly warns that it covers only 13 selected agricultural commodity markets ('only' acts as an exclusion). It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the scope limitation gives actionable guidance.

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