Unmet payment demand

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and usefully discloses access tiers and freshness: the free level is one day behind, while Pro keys of the Unmet Demand Map receive additional breakdowns. It does not cover rate limits or auth requirements beyond the Pro-key distinction, but it adds meaningful 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 dense but front-loaded and efficient: it establishes the subject, then immediately contrasts the no-currency and with-currency behavior, followed by tier-specific details. Every clause adds useful information, and there is no filler.

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 simple one-parameter schema, full schema coverage, and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete enough for an agent to call the tool correctly. It explains both modes, the free-tier lag, and the Pro-key additions, leaving no major ambiguity about expected behavior.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real semantic meaning by explaining how the optional currency parameter changes the response from a market ranking to a single-currency rank and trend. It also clarifies that omitting the parameter selects the ranking mode.

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 states a specific analytical resource — unmet payment demand in emerging markets — and clearly explains what the tool returns in both modes: a market ranking when no currency is supplied, or a single currency’s rank and trend when one is. This is sufficiently distinct from sibling tools such as get_stress_signals and get_rail_health.

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?

It explicitly explains the two usage modes: omit the currency for the ranking, or provide a currency for that market’s rank and trend. It does not name alternative sibling tools or state when not to use this tool, but the operational context is clear.

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