create_commodity

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that mnemonic is 'Unique within namespace' and explains fraction semantics (smallest fractional unit with concrete examples). It doesn't state whether creation is reversible (is there a delete_commodity counterpart?), what happens on duplicates, or what the output schema contains. The uniqueness constraint and fraction explanation are useful behavioral disclosures, but some gaps remain for a creation tool with no annotation coverage.

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 efficiently organized with an opening summary and per-parameter bullet points. Every sentence earns its place. It's slightly longer than strictly necessary but every detail (fraction examples, namespace mapping) is genuinely useful. The format is scannable and the most critical guidance 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?

Despite 5 parameters and 0% schema coverage, the description is remarkably complete for a mutating tool. It covers all parameter semantics, known constraints (uniqueness), and examples. An output schema exists so return value explanation isn't required. For a straightforward creation tool, this description is complete and self-sufficient.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description provides thorough explanations for all 5 parameters. The fraction field gets especially detailed treatment with concrete examples (1=whole, 100=2 decimals, 10000=shares, 1000000=crypto). Namespace gets asset-type mapping. Mnemonic gets uniqueness and example. Fullname and cusip are described. This fully compensates for the absence of schema descriptions.

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 'Create a new commodity (stock, mutual fund, etc.)' with a specific verb (create) and resource (commodity). It distinguishes from siblings by covering a distinct domain (commodities) and defines commodity scope with 'stock, mutual fund, etc.' This is a precise, unambiguous purpose statement.

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 excellent per-field guidance for the namespace parameter explaining which namespaces map to which asset types (FUND for mutual funds, NASDAQ/NYSE/AMEX for stocks, any custom string). However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like create_lot or create_price, and doesn't mention whether commodities need to be created before prices can be set. The implied usage is clear but no exclusions or alternatives are named.

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