list_commodities

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 significant behavioral details: that limit=0 returns count only, that stale_days excludes the book default currency, that held_only filters to commodities real accounts are denominated in, and that filters AND-combine. An output schema exists to document return structure, and behavioral traits like pagination and filtering semantics are well covered.

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 well-structured with a clear lead sentence, a pragmatic workflow hint (THE PRICE-UPDATE WORK LIST), and a clean Args block. Every sentence earns its place, explaining real usage patterns rather than padding. It's longer than minimal but all content is operationally valuable.

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 listing tool with 5 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, and an output schema present, the description is remarkably complete. It explains output format, pagination, filtering semantics, and even ties into the broader workflow (create_prices) for the stale-quotes use case. The output schema covers return values, so the description needn't duplicate that.

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 fully compensates. Every parameter is explained beyond its schema definition: verbose (full JSON details, default false), limit (default 50, max 250, 0=count only), offset (0-indexed, default 0), stale_days (at least N days old, includes never-priced, excludes default currency), and held_only (only denominations in real accounts, AND-combines with stale_days).

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 lists all commodities (currencies, stocks, etc.) with specific verb+resource+scope. It distinguishes itself from siblings like list_accounts and list_lots by naming the resource explicitly, and it provides detail on output format (count line, one-line-per-commodity default, verbose JSON option).

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 explicit guidance on when to use the stale_days+held_only combination as a price-update work list, naming the follow-up tool create_prices. It clearly explains filter semantics (AND-combining, excludes book default currency, includes never-priced) and pagination conventions.

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