list_treasury_yields

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Retrieve treasury yield data,' which implies a read-only operation but does not cover critical aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, data freshness, pagination (implied by parameters like 'limit'), or error handling. This leaves the agent with insufficient information to use the tool safely and effectively.

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 very concise with a single sentence, 'Retrieve treasury yield data.', which is front-loaded and wastes no words. However, this brevity leads to under-specification, as it omits necessary details for effective use, but it is structured efficiently without 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?

Given the complexity (10 parameters, no schema descriptions, no annotations, no output schema), the description is completely inadequate. It does not compensate for the lack of structured data, failing to explain parameter usage, behavioral context, or output format. This leaves significant gaps for an AI agent to understand and use the tool correctly.

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 input schema has 10 parameters with 0% description coverage, meaning none are documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the tool's purpose, failing to explain what parameters like 'date', 'date_gt', 'limit', or 'order' do or how they affect the retrieval. This lack of information makes it difficult for an agent to correctly invoke the tool.

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 'Retrieve treasury yield data.' states a verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('treasury yield data'), but it is vague and tautological, essentially restating the tool name 'list_treasury_yields' without providing specific details like what data is included (e.g., yields for different maturities) or how it differs from siblings. It lacks sibling differentiation, as many sibling tools (e.g., list_aggs, list_quotes) also retrieve data, making this unclear.

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. It does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, and with many sibling tools (e.g., list_inflation, list_futures_aggregates) that might overlap in data retrieval, there is no indication of when this specific tool is appropriate, leading to potential misuse.

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