cftc_cot_legacy

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the safety profile, so the description adds value by describing data content (commercial vs non-commercial positions, market coverage). It does not disclose deeper behavioral traits such as pagination behavior, rate limits, or potential response size issues, but it is consistent with the annotation.

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 four sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and each sentence adds relevant information: purpose, data content, coverage, and parameter usage. No extraneous details or fluff.

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 read-only annotation, schema with 100% parameter coverage, and the simplicity of the tool, the description adequately explains what data is returned and how to filter. It does not specify return fields or mention alternative COT reports, but these are not critical for basic usage.

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%, providing full parameter documentation. The description adds a brief restatement of the futures_only behavior, but no new meaning beyond the schema. This meets the baseline without exceeding it.

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 'Get Legacy Commitments of Traders (COT) report data from CFTC,' using a specific verb and resource. It further distinguishes this tool from sibling tools by specifying 'Legacy' and describing its scope (commercial vs non-commercial positions, all U.S. futures exchanges).

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?

Provides clear context on what the tool returns and how to use the futures_only parameter ('Use futures_only=true for futures-only, false for combined futures+options'). However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this over sibling tools like cftc_cot_disaggregated or cftc_cot_tff, so no direct exclusions or alternative comparisons are given.

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