Search CFTC Futures Contracts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description doesn't need to restate safety. It adds real context beyond the annotations: the coverage is a curated ~35-contract set, and markets outside it have no COT data here — an important expectation-setting constraint. It also names what is returned (codes and categories), though it says nothing about result ordering or pagination behavior.

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?

Front-loads the core action and scope in the first sentence, then the coverage caveat and the routing hint. Every sentence carries information, though the middle coverage sentence is dense and the closing clause is slightly run-on.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by describing the return shape (matching contracts with codes and categories) and the coverage boundary. Combined with the fully documented schema and readOnly annotation, an agent has nearly everything needed; only ordering/pagination detail is absent.

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%, and the schema already documents both parameters, including the fuzzy/strict matching rule and the omit-to-list-all behavior. The description restates the searchable fields and the list-all case but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 specific verb (Search) and resource (tracked CFTC futures contracts) and enumerates the searchable keys (name, market code, common contract name, symbol). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like GetCftcPositioning, which it explicitly references.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use: 'use this to discover market codes before calling GetCftcPositioning,' plus the no-query behavior ('omit the query to list every tracked contract'). The alternative workflow is named, so the agent knows both the trigger and the downstream step.

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