get_commodity_price

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds little behavioral context beyond that; it does not discuss rate limits, data freshness/latency, or market-hours caveats that would matter for price data.

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 definition is short and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated first. The Args/Returns block is standard and low-waste, though the Returns line is partially redundant given an output schema exists.

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 an output schema present, the description need not enumerate return fields, and it supplies the one piece the schema lacks: accepted input formats. It is nearly complete for a simple single-parameter read tool, lacking only explicit alternative-tool routing.

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% for the single parameter, so the description must compensate, and it does by giving concrete accepted formats ('gold', 'oil', 'crude oil', 'GC=F', 'CL=F'). This tells the agent both human-readable names and ticker syntax are valid, which the schema omits entirely.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Get commodity/futures price data'), which is clear. It implicitly distinguishes itself from siblings like get_crypto_price and get_stock_price by scoping to commodities/futures, but never names those alternatives explicitly, so differentiation relies on inference.

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?

Usage is implied by the resource scope (commodities/futures rather than equities or crypto), so an agent can likely route correctly. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives for related assets, and no note on prerequisites or data coverage.

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