get_commodity_price

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read query but discloses nothing about rate limits, auth requirements, freshness/lag of the quotes, or what the response contains for a price-lookup tool whose output format is undocumented.

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?

Two efficient sentences with the verb+resource front-loaded and the input hint following. The commodity list is somewhat enumerative but proportionate to the tool's breadth.

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 single-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description covers inputs but says nothing about the returned structure (quote value, currency, timestamp). Adequate but leaves the response contract undocumented.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already enumerates the accepted names and Yahoo symbols (GC=F, SI=F, etc.). The description only restates the same Turkish-name-or-symbol flexibility, adding no syntax or fallback detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (döndürür = returns) and resource (emtia fiyatları = commodity prices) with concrete examples (gold, silver, WTI/Brent, gas, copper, platinum, palladium). Clear purpose, though it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from nearby siblings like get_altin_gram_price or get_fund_price, which could overlap for precious metals.

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 gives only an implied usage (querying a commodity price) and a loose input hint ('Turkish names or symbols'), but no explicit when-to-use, prerequisites, or alternatives. With get_altin_gram_price present in the sibling list, the absence of routing guidance for gold in particular is a real gap.

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