futures_watchlist

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

Annotations already mark it read-only and non-destructive, so the description's safety burden is low. It adds meaningful context by defining exactly what the list contains (front-month, categorized) and by naming the categories, which goes beyond the title. It doesn't reveal output formatting, but that is not critical for a read-only reference list.

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?

Three short sentences, each earning its place: the purpose, the exact category taxonomy, and the recommended follow-up tools. No filler or redundant wording.

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 zero-parameter, read-only list tool, this is complete: the agent knows what it will receive, how the list is organized, and what to do next. The output schema is absent, but the description's explicit category list plus the follow-up pointers are enough for successful invocation.

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 tool has no parameters and the schema coverage is complete, so the description does not need to explain parameters. It correctly avoids inventing parameter requirements, making the call semantics obvious.

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?

States a specific verb ('Return') and a precise resource ('full categorized list of well-known front-month futures symbols'). The listed categories and the pointer to sibling tools distinguish it from futures_market_overview and futures_top_movers.

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 explicitly frames it as a symbol-reference source and tells the agent to feed these symbols into futures_category_snapshot or coin_analysis for deeper analysis. It does not spell out exclusions, but for a zero-parameter reference tool the intended use case is clear.

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