listCommodities

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint. The description adds 'extensive list' and 'real-time' without contradicting annotations. No behavioral traits beyond what annotations cover are disclosed, but no contradictions exist.

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?

Two sentences with no redundant information. It efficiently states the purpose and scope. Could be slightly more concise but adequate.

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?

For a no-parameter, read-only list tool, the description covers the high-level purpose and sectors. However, it lacks details about the output format or fields (e.g., symbol, name, sector). With no output schema and no description of return values, it is somewhat incomplete for an agent to anticipate the response.

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 input schema has no parameters, and schema coverage is 100% (vacuously). The description adds no parameter-related information beyond the schema, which is acceptable. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 it provides an extensive list of tracked commodities across energy, metals, and agricultural sectors. The verb 'access' and resource 'list of commodities' are specific, but it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like getCommodityQuotes, though that tool is for quotes, not the list itself.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't mention using this to get symbols before calling getCommodityQuotes or other commodity-specific tools. The description implies general exploration but lacks when-not-to-use guidance.

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