list_futures_aggregates

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 behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'Get aggregates' but doesn't specify if this is a read-only operation, what permissions might be needed, rate limits, pagination behavior, or error handling. For a tool with 10 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded and gets straight to the point, making it easy to parse quickly. However, this conciseness comes at the cost of detail, but within the dimension's scope, it's perfectly structured.

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?

Given the complexity (10 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'aggregates' are, how to interpret the numerous window parameters, or what the tool returns. For a data-fetching tool with many inputs, more context is needed to guide effective usage.

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%, meaning none of the 10 parameters have descriptions in the schema. The description only vaguely references 'a futures contract' and 'a given time range,' which partially maps to 'ticker' and some window parameters but doesn't explain what 'aggregates' include, the meaning of 'resolution,' 'sort,' 'limit,' or 'params.' It adds minimal value beyond the schema's property names.

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 the tool 'Get aggregates for a futures contract in a given time range,' which provides a basic verb+resource+scope. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from siblings like 'get_aggs' or 'list_aggs,' leaving ambiguity about what makes it specific to futures contracts versus other aggregation tools. The purpose is clear but lacks sibling differentiation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'get_futures_snapshot' or 'list_futures_quotes,' there's no indication of whether this tool is for historical data, real-time aggregates, or specific use cases. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving the agent to guess based on the name alone.

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