futures_category_snapshot

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds behavioral context by specifying the return format ('OHLCV quotes for the standard watchlist of contracts') and giving example symbols per category, which goes beyond the annotations. However, it does not disclose any limitations (e.g., what 'major front-month' means, how the watchlist is determined, or potential delays). Since this is a read-only snapshot tool, the added detail is useful but not exhaustive.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded with the core purpose before diving into details. It uses a clear heading ('Args'), lists categories, and shows return behavior and examples—all in just 3 sentences. There is zero fluff; each sentence adds necessary information. This is a model of efficiency.

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 that there is no output schema, the description does explain the return (OHLCV quotes) and provides example symbols. However, it leaves some ambiguity about what 'standard watchlist' includes and does not discuss error handling or behavior for invalid categories. For a simple one-parameter tool, this is adequate but not comprehensive. The lack of a defined output schema lowers the expected burden, so a 3 is reasonable.

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 schema description coverage is 0% and there are no enums, so the description carries the full burden of explaining the 'category' parameter. It explicitly enumerates the acceptable values (equity_index, energy, metals, agriculture, rates, forex, crypto_futures), which is essential for correct invocation. It also provides example symbols to illustrate typical inputs, compensating for the lack of schema-level documentation. This is strong for a single parameter, though it could mention that the default is 'energy'.

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 states a specific verb ('Quote') and resource ('all major front-month contracts in a specific futures category'). It clearly explains the scope by listing the five categories, making it distinguishable from siblings like 'futures_watchlist' (which likely targets a default set rather than a category-based subset). However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, so it falls just short of a 5.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives. It does not mention 'use when you need quotes for a category' or point to siblings like 'futures_market_overview' as a fallback. The description implies use for category-specific quotes but never states exclusions or alternatives, making this dimension weak.

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