list_futures_aggregates

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

The annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, which the description doesn't contradict. However, the description adds minimal behavioral context beyond what annotations provide. It mentions 'in a given time range' which hints at temporal filtering, but doesn't explain what 'aggregates' means, what data is returned, or any rate limits, authentication requirements, or performance characteristics. With annotations covering the safety aspect, the description adds some value but lacks rich behavioral disclosure.

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 at just one sentence with 10 words. Every word earns its place by specifying the action, target, and temporal scope. There's no wasted verbiage or unnecessary elaboration, making it efficiently front-loaded.

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 complexity (10 parameters, futures-specific tool) and the existence of an output schema (which reduces the need to describe return values), the description is minimally adequate but has significant gaps. It identifies the tool's domain (futures aggregates) but doesn't explain parameter usage, differentiate from siblings, or provide behavioral context beyond the annotations. The output schema existence prevents a lower score, but the description should do more for a tool with this many parameters.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and 10 parameters (only 2 required), the description provides almost no parameter guidance. It mentions 'futures contract' (hinting at the ticker parameter) and 'time range' (hinting at window_start parameters), but doesn't explain the resolution parameter, the various window_start comparison operators (lt, lte, gt, gte), limit, sort, or params. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema descriptions.

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 action ('Get aggregates') and target resource ('for a futures contract in a given time range'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from similar siblings like 'get_aggs', 'list_aggs', or 'get_daily_open_close_agg', which likely provide similar aggregation functionality for different asset types or timeframes.

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. With many sibling tools offering aggregation functionality (get_aggs, list_aggs, get_daily_open_close_agg, get_previous_close_agg, etc.), there's no indication of what makes this tool specific to futures contracts or how it differs from other aggregation tools in the server.

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