get_delivery_prices

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only identifies the data type and use case; it does not describe output format, pagination behavior, side effects, or any access requirements. For a read-only tool this is not misleading, but it is thin on behavioral context.

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?

Two concise sentences with no filler. The primary action and resource are front-loaded, and the second sentence adds relevant use-case context without redundancy.

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 simple read-only retrieval tool with fully documented parameters, the description covers the essential purpose and context. The lack of output schema means return shape is not explicitly described, but the tool is still callable correctly based on this definition.

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 100%, so the parameters are already documented with examples and limits. The description adds no additional parameter-level semantics, making the baseline score of 3 appropriate.

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 and resource: getting historical settlement/delivery prices for an index. It clearly distinguishes this from current index price or volatility history, though it does not explicitly name a sibling tool to differentiate against.

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 use-case context ('backtesting', 'past expiry outcomes') which implies when this tool is relevant. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like get_index_price or get_historical_volatility, nor does it mention any exclusions.

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