get_futures_product_details

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

The annotation 'readOnlyHint: true' already indicates this is a safe read operation. The description adds the temporal aspect ('as it was at a specific day'), which is useful context beyond annotations. However, it doesn't disclose other behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'details' include. With annotations covering safety, this adds some value but not rich behavioral context.

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action and includes all necessary elements (verb, resource, constraint) without redundancy. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 moderate complexity (4 parameters, 1 required), the presence of annotations (readOnlyHint) and an output schema helps, but the description lacks parameter guidance and usage context. It's minimally adequate for a read operation but leaves gaps in parameter understanding and sibling differentiation, making it incomplete for optimal agent 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%, so the schema provides no parameter documentation. The description mentions 'product_code' and 'as_of' implicitly but doesn't explain any of the 4 parameters' semantics, formats, or constraints. It fails to compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions, leaving parameters largely undocumented.

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 verb ('Get details') and resource ('for a single futures product'), and specifies the temporal constraint ('as it was at a specific day'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_futures_snapshot' (real-time) and 'list_futures_products' (multiple products), but doesn't explicitly name alternatives. This is clear but lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, exclusions, or compare with siblings like 'get_futures_contract_details' or 'get_futures_snapshot'. The agent must infer usage from the description alone, which is insufficient for optimal tool selection.

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