get_policy_rate_context

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does add value: it explicitly states the operation is read-only, explains the temporal semantics ('first-seen ... available by the requested time'), and reveals a non-obvious behavior (TradingView decision-date bars are never treated as intraday publication timestamps). It lacks details on auth, rate limits, or side effects, but for a read-only context tool this is meaningful disclosure.

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 sentences with the core behavior front-loaded and the differentiating exclusion in the second sentence. Every clause earns its place, and there is no repetition of schema information.

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?

The description is incomplete for an agent to fully invoke and interpret the tool: it does not describe the shape of the returned 'policy-rate versions', and no output schema exists to fill that gap. It also leaves the un-documented currencies parameter unexplained, so default behavior and filtering semantics remain unclear.

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 only 50%: as_of is documented, but currencies has no description. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning; it never explains how currencies filters results or what happens when that array is omitted, leaving the agent to infer semantics from the enum values alone.

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 uses a specific verb ('Read') and a well-qualified resource ('locally first-seen policy-rate versions that were available by the requested time'). It also draws a clear boundary with 'this is macro context, not a trading trigger,' which helps distinguish the tool from trading-signal siblings even without naming them.

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 'not a trading trigger' line implies a context for use and warns against a likely misuse, but the description never names alternatives or gives explicit conditions for when to choose this tool over closely related siblings like get_exploratory_policy_rate_history. Usage guidance is mostly implied rather than stated.

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