economy

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only lists content areas and does not state whether the tool is read-only, whether it mutates anything, or how the country parameter affects results. There is no contradiction with annotations because no annotations 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?

The description is a single compact line with no filler, and the content areas are front-loaded. It earns its place by identifying the tool's scope, though it is terse enough that it omits important usage context.

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?

With one parameter and an output schema, the description is too thin to fully guide invocation: it does not explain what action the tool performs, how the country parameter works, or when to pick this tool among many economic/overview siblings. The output schema may clarify return shape, but selection and invocation remain underspecified.

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%, and the description never mentions the 'country' parameter or its default value of 'player'. It adds no meaning beyond the input schema's own field title and default, failing to compensate for the low coverage.

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 lists concrete economic areas—treasury, weekly income/expenditure, investment pool, and tax rates—making the tool's subject clear and distinguishing it from siblings like politics or military. However, it lacks an explicit action verb such as 'view' or 'get', so it stops short of a perfect score.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool instead of siblings like overview, country, or rankings. It also does not mention when not to use it or any alternatives, leaving the agent to infer suitability from the name alone.

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