indicator_query

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only mentions that data is returned, but does not state whether the operation is read-only, any side effects, permissions required, or rate limits. This lack of transparency is a significant gap.

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, consisting of two sentences that convey the core purpose, return content, and a pointer to a related tool. No fluff or redundant information is present.

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?

The description gives a high-level overview of what the tool returns (announcement dates, values, prior readings) and hints at input discovery, but lacks details on parameter formats or output structure. Given the presence of an output schema (not shown) and the simplicity of the operation, the description is partially complete but leaves key specifics unaddressed.

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?

The schema has no descriptions for the parameters, and the description provides minimal semantics—only that currency and indicator are valid slugs discoverable via data_catalogue. It does not explain start_date/end_date formats or the meaning of the return fields. With 0% schema coverage, the description fails to meaningfully clarify parameter usage.

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 tool's purpose: to get macroeconomic indicator time series for a currency, and specifies it returns announcement dates, values, and prior readings. It also differentiates from siblings by directing to data_catalogue for valid slugs, making the tool's role distinct.

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 context on when to use the tool (to retrieve indicator data) and explicitly points to data_catalogue for discovering valid inputs. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus alternatives like release_calendar or forex, though the intent is clear.

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