Commodity Forecast

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, covering safety and repeatability. The description adds valuable behavioral context not in annotations: authentication is optional, tiered access (free/Pro), and specific header/query parameter formats for keys. However, it omits rate limits, caching behavior, or error conditions.

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 optimally structured: the first sentence states purpose, the second covers authentication mechanics. No wasted words; every sentence earns its place with distinct, non-redundant information.

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 output schema exists, return values need not be described. However, with 0% schema coverage and only partial parameter documentation (indicator explained, timeframe ignored), the description leaves significant gaps. The presence of rich annotations compensates for safety aspects, but the parameter gap prevents a higher score.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It effectively translates the 'indicator' enum values into human-readable commodities (crude oil, natural gas, etc.), adding semantic meaning. However, it completely omits the 'timeframe' parameter (monthly/quarterly/yearly), leaving half the parameter set undocumented beyond the schema structure.

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 provides 'Macro forecasts' (specific verb) for concrete commodities: crude oil, natural gas, aluminium, and volatility (specific resources). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like forecast_currency or forecast_equities by domain, though it does not explicitly contrast with them.

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?

While the description explains authentication tiers (free vs. Pro) and header formats, it provides no guidance on when to select this tool over sibling forecast tools (e.g., forecast_gdp vs. commodities) or what prerequisites trigger its use.

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