get_nordpool_prices

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It adds useful specifics: the 15-minute resolution and the no-API-key requirement. However, it does not mention output format, error behavior, rate limits, or whether it is purely read-only. This is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 sentence that packs in the source (Nordpool), product (day-ahead prices), resolution (15-min), geographic scope (Nordic/Baltic, detailed areas), and a key access trait (no API key). Every word earns its place, with no fluff or redundancy.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should inform the agent what the return data looks like. It only says 'prices' without specifying the structure, units, or whether timestamps and area labels are included. While the tool is simple and the parameters are well documented, the lack of output expectations leaves a notable gap for an agent to fully anticipate the result.

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 already provides complete descriptions for all three parameters, including examples and an enum for currency. The description's mention of areas ('SE1-4, NO1-5, DK1-2, FI') is redundant with the schema's detailed list. With 100% schema description coverage, the description adds minimal value beyond what the schema already offers.

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 retrieves Nordic/Baltic day-ahead prices from Nordpool, with a 15-minute resolution and specific area coverage. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_smard_data (German market) or get_rte_france (French market), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: when Nordic/Baltic day-ahead prices are needed. The note 'No API key' hints at lower friction compared to other tools, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions. Still, the geographic scope is a strong usage indicator.

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