get_commodity_prices

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses useful behavioral traits: no API key required and return scope (latest, 5-day history, stats). However, it does not explain what 'stats' means, specify output format, or explicitly state read-only behavior, leaving some gaps for a read operation.

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, front-loaded sentence with three concise clauses: what it returns, the time/history scope, and the auth requirement. Every phrase adds value, with no redundancy or 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?

For a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: exact commodities, time range, and authentication. It lacks details on output structure and the meaning of 'stats', but overall it is sufficiently complete for straightforward price retrieval, especially given the schema's richness.

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 100%, with each enum value well-described. The description adds minimal additional parameter meaning beyond listing commodity types, but since the schema already handles semantics fully, the baseline of 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 identifies the tool as returning EU commodity prices with specific commodities (EUA carbon, Brent crude, TTF gas) and a defined scope (latest + 5-day history + stats). This is a specific verb+resource+scope that effectively distinguishes it from most sibling tools by naming exact instruments, though overlap with get_eu_gas_price is not addressed.

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 implies when to use the tool by stating it provides EU commodity prices, but it offers no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like get_eu_gas_price or get_smard_data. No exclusions or alternative tool names are mentioned, so usage context is implied rather than explicit.

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