Currency Forecast

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

Annotations already establish read-only, non-destructive, idempotent behavior. The description adds valuable authentication context (API key triggers 'Pro automatically'), which is behavioral information not present in annotations. However, it omits other behavioral details like rate limits, error handling for invalid indicators, or data freshness/horizon of the forecasts.

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 consists of two efficient sentences. The first front-loads the core purpose and enumerates the available indicators. The second provides necessary authentication context. Every sentence earns its place with zero redundancy or fluff.

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 presence of an output schema, the description appropriately omits return value details. However, with 0% schema coverage and 2 parameters, the description should document both parameters but only documents one. Additionally, with 10 sibling forecast tools, the lack of explicit selection guidance leaves a significant gap in contextual completeness.

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 carry full parameter documentation. It effectively explains the 'indicator' parameter by listing all five enum values in the parenthetical. However, it completely omits the 'timeframe' parameter (monthly/quarterly/yearly), leaving that parameter undocumented despite its default value and behavioral significance.

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 it provides 'USD FX and volatility forecasts' and lists specific currency pairs and indices (USD/EUR, USD/AUD, USD/CNY, dollar index, euro FX vol), which maps directly to the indicator enum values. While the domain (currency) inherently distinguishes it from siblings like forecast_commodities or forecast_equities, it lacks explicit comparative guidance stating when to select this over other forecast 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 provides authentication mechanics ('Optional API key via headers or ?api_key=') but fails to offer selection guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling forecast tools (forecast_equities, forecast_commodities, etc.). No prerequisites, exclusions, or decision criteria are provided beyond the auth mechanism.

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