Get spread forecast track record

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses public read-only nature via 'Public', and adds context on the kind of data (MAE/RMSE/coverage/DART PnL). It doesn't describe return format or update frequency, but for a 0-param read-only tool this is adequate.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, no filler. Each sentence earns its place.

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 simple parameterless tool, the description is complete: it names the resource, its scope, the metrics, and the alternative. Missing specifics about return shape or historical range, but these are minor gaps for such a tool.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description doesn't need to explain any parameters and adds richness by stating the specific metrics included.

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 exactly what the tool does: exposes a scored track record of specific models (Kardashev Labs ERCOT RT-DA spread) with metrics. It explicitly names the resource and differentiates from get_spread_forecast.

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 says 'Use this to evaluate forecast quality' and provides the alternative 'use get_spread_forecast for the live forward issuance', giving clear when-to-use vs alternative guidance.

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