Commodity groups

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

The annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context about hierarchical traversal and downstream id usage, though it does not discuss return size, caching, or rate limits.

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 front-loaded with the resource and hierarchy, then immediately gives the calling pattern and downstream usage. Every sentence contributes useful information, and the parenthetical examples clarify category levels without excessive length.

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 two-parameter, read-only taxonomy lookup with full schema descriptions and no output schema, the description is complete enough for an agent to call it correctly. It covers the hierarchy, argument combinations, returned ids, and how those ids feed other tools.

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 coverage is 100%, so the parameter baseline is already strong. The description adds meaningful traversal semantics beyond the schema by explaining that no arguments returns main groups, main_cat returns groups under it, and main_cat plus cat returns subgroups, with concrete examples of each level.

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: listing the exchange's commodity groups, including the hierarchy of main groups, groups, and subgroups with ids. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools such as ime_trades and ime_price_history because it serves as the taxonomy lookup used to obtain their category ids.

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?

It explicitly explains the three call patterns: no arguments for main groups, main_cat for groups, and main_cat plus cat for subgroups. It also tells the agent how the returned ids should be used in ime_trades, ime_supply, and ime_price_history, leaving little ambiguity about when this tool is needed.

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