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

No annotations are provided and the description does not disclose behavioral details such as read-only nature, data source, update frequency, or potential side effects.

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 concise and direct, with no unnecessary wording or repetition.

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?

Provides the core purpose and supported indicators, but lacks important input context such as date range handling and response format, leaving some ambiguity for a caller.

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 provides no parameter descriptions; the description only mentions indicator values and omits explanation of start_date/end_date format, default behavior, or required indicator semantics.

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?

Clearly states the tool gets commodity price time series and lists the supported indicators (gold, silver, platinum), distinguishing it from sibling tools like forex.

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?

Does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives such as forex or indicator_query, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses that data is weekly and limited to the listed currencies, which are useful constraints. However, it does not mention error behavior for unsupported currencies, date handling, authentication, or rate limits. The read-only nature is implied by 'Get' but not stated explicitly.

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, concise sentence that immediately states the action and the resource, followed by a list of supported currencies. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or redundancy, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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?

While the description lists supported currencies, it does not explain the date parameters, which are optional but likely important for filtering historical data. The output schema exists but does not cover input semantics. An agent would lack the information needed to correctly construct calls with start_date and end_date, making the definition incomplete for proper invocation.

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%, so the description must compensate. It partially explains the 'currency' parameter by listing valid values, but it does not describe the purpose or format of 'start_date' and 'end_date'. These optional parameters remain ambiguous, and the description provides no guidance on how to use them, leaving a significant gap for an agent.

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 identifies the action ('Get') and the resource ('CFTC Commitment of Traders (COT) weekly positioning data for a currency's FX futures contract'), and explicitly lists the supported currencies (AUD, CAD, CHF, EUR, GBP, JPY, NZD, USD). This makes it distinct from sibling data tools like forex or commodities, which serve different data domains.

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 implies usage (when you need COT positioning data, use this tool) but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose it over alternatives like forex or indicator_query, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The supported currency list is a form of context but does not address tool selection among siblings.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the burden. 'List' strongly implies a read-only operation with no side effects, and the description gives no hint of destructive behavior. It does not explicitly state 'read-only' but the verb is sufficient for reasonable 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 concise sentence with no redundant information. It front-loads the action and resource, and the enumeration of supported currencies is relevant and well-placed.

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?

The tool has an output schema (as per context signals), so the description need not explain return values. The description sufficiently covers the core purpose and supported inputs, making it complete for practical use.

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 parameter 'currency' has no schema-level description or enum, but the tool description explicitly lists supported currency codes (AUD, BRL, etc.), providing the needed context for valid values. It does not elaborate on format or case sensitivity, but the list is highly informative.

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's purpose with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('available macroeconomic indicators for a currency'). It also enumerates supported currencies, making the scope 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?

The description implies usage (when you need to discover available indicators for a currency) but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like indicator_query or state when this tool should be preferred over alternatives.

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

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

The description discloses the comma-separated list format for the indicators parameter, which is a behavioral trait beyond the schema. However, it does not mention any side effects, error conditions, or what exactly the response contains (beyond 'rates'), and there are no annotations to fill that gap.

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 concise, using only two sentences with no redundant or fluff content. It front-loads the core purpose and then adds a necessary clarification about parameter formatting.

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 lack of annotations and the presence of 5 parameters (including required ones), the description is incomplete. It omits date formats, currency code conventions, and any distinction from the sibling 'indicator_query' tool, which is a significant gap for practical use.

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?

With zero schema descriptions, the description must compensate by explaining parameters. It only explains the 'indicators' parameter, leaving base, quote, start_date, and end_date unexplained. The phrase 'currency pair' is too vague to clarify the required base/quote parameters.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'FX spot rates', and specifies the optional addition of technical indicators. It is distinct from sibling tools like commodities and indicator_query by focusing specifically on currency pairs.

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 implies its use for retrieving forex spot rates, but it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when to choose this over indicator_query or others. It offers no direct 'use this when' guidance, only an implicit purpose.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only mentions that data is returned, but does not state whether the operation is read-only, any side effects, permissions required, or rate limits. This lack of transparency is a significant gap.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two sentences that convey the core purpose, return content, and a pointer to a related tool. No fluff or redundant information is present.

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?

The description gives a high-level overview of what the tool returns (announcement dates, values, prior readings) and hints at input discovery, but lacks details on parameter formats or output structure. Given the presence of an output schema (not shown) and the simplicity of the operation, the description is partially complete but leaves key specifics unaddressed.

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 has no descriptions for the parameters, and the description provides minimal semantics—only that currency and indicator are valid slugs discoverable via data_catalogue. It does not explain start_date/end_date formats or the meaning of the return fields. With 0% schema coverage, the description fails to meaningfully clarify parameter usage.

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's purpose: to get macroeconomic indicator time series for a currency, and specifies it returns announcement dates, values, and prior readings. It also differentiates from siblings by directing to data_catalogue for valid slugs, making the tool's role distinct.

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 context on when to use the tool (to retrieve indicator data) and explicitly points to data_catalogue for discovering valid inputs. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus alternatives like release_calendar or forex, though the intent is clear.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It explains the tool returns a timetable and overlap windows, and that it can take a timestamp for a snapshot, which is good. However, it does not state that the operation is read-only (though implied), nor does it mention any potential side effects, rate limits, or output format specifics beyond what the output schema would convey.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary function, and every word adds value. No fluff or repetition.

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 simple tool with one optional parameter and an output schema present, the description is largely complete. It covers the main behavior and parameter semantics, though it could mention default behavior more explicitly (e.g., that omitting 'at' returns current timetable) – but that is already implied by the phrasing.

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 has zero description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does so by explaining that the 'at' parameter is a UTC timestamp for requesting a snapshot, which adds meaning beyond the bare schema (string/null). However, it does not specify the exact timestamp format (e.g., ISO 8601), leaving some ambiguity.

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's purpose: retrieving the FX market-session timetable and overlap windows, either current or at a specific UTC timestamp. It names the specific sessions covered (Sydney, Tokyo, London, New York), which distinguishes it from sibling tools that handle other data types like forex rates or indicators.

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 implies when to use the tool (when FX market session information is needed) and explains the two modes (current vs. timestamp snapshot), but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. Since siblings are thematically different, the purpose is clear enough, but explicit routing guidance is absent.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It mentions only the verification outcome, not whether the call is read-only, has side effects, or how errors are surfaced.

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, focused sentence with no unnecessary words or repetition, making it optimally concise.

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 simple ping tool, the description provides the essential context. It could mention what a successful or failed reachability check returns, but this is largely implied and not a significant gap.

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 tool has no parameters, so there is nothing for the description to add beyond the schema. The description is fully consistent with the empty parameter list.

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's verb ('Verify') and target ('FXMacroData API reachability'), making its purpose unmistakable and distinct from the listed sibling tools.

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 implies usage for checking API reachability but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives or when it is not appropriate.

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

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

No annotations are present, and the description only states what the tool does without mentioning return format, error handling, or whether it is a read-only operation. It is not misleading, but transparency is minimal.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the primary action and resource. No unnecessary words or details.

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?

The description conveys the core functionality but lacks detail on output structure or any additional context. Given the absence of an output schema, it is moderately complete but not fully.

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 description mentions both parameters ('currency' and 'indicator'), giving some meaning beyond the names, but does not specify allowed values, formats, or examples. Since the schema has no descriptions, this adds partial value.

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 action ('get') and the resource ('upcoming macroeconomic release dates') for a specific currency, with an optional filter. It is specific but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'indicator_query'.

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?

Provides a hint about the optional indicator filter but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'indicator_query' or 'data_catalogue'. No explicit conditions or scenarios are described.

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