macro_latest

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the most consequential behavior: a $0.01 USDC charge per call via x402 on Base, auto-paid from a configured wallet. That is exactly the kind of cost and prerequisite information an agent needs before invoking. It stops short of stating data freshness/cadence, rate limits, or what happens if the wallet is unfunded.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the payload scope and ending with the payment model, with no filler. The 24-indicator list is long but functional, since it defines the coverage the agent is paying for.

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 zero-param read tool with no output schema, the description covers scope and cost but omits the return structure (units, direction of 'change', comparison period for YoY) and the freshness of the data. It also fails to position the tool against macro_series, which is the main remaining gap given a fairly crowded sibling set.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies no input is needed and spends its words on scope and cost instead.

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?

It states a specific verb-and-resource combination ('Latest value, change and year-over-year % for 24 key US indicators') and enumerates the indicators covered, so an agent knows exactly what data comes back. It does not differentiate itself from the sibling macro_series, which sounds like a closely related per-indicator lookup, leaving ambiguity about which to call.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of the alternatives macro_series and macro_calendar despite them being obvious siblings. An agent must infer from the name alone that this is the snapshot tool rather than the time-series or calendar tool.

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