get_real_yield_context

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals the data source ('official U.S. Treasury 10-year par real yield'), the update cadence ('latest', 'end-of-day'), and the meaningful point-in-time behavior ('read only locally persisted versions first seen by that time'). It does not describe failure modes or whether network access occurs, but the output schema reduces the need to spell out return structure.

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 sentences, no wasted words, with the core purpose front-loaded. The second sentence adds a crucial usage boundary, and the third sentence explains the one optional parameter. Every sentence earns its place.

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 tool has only one optional parameter, no required parameters, and an output schema, so the behavioral burden is small. The description covers what the tool returns, its cadence, its macro-context role, and the as_of semantics. An agent has enough to decide when to call it and how to invoke it correctly.

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 already documents as_of fully with format and a clear description, and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds value by clarifying that as_of reads 'only locally persisted versions first seen by that time,' which refines the schema's 'point-in-time cutoff' phrasing with concrete semantics. This extra nuance justifies moving above the baseline of 3.

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 names a specific verb ('Get'), a precise resource ('U.S. Treasury 10-year par real yield'), and a clear scope ('latest official'). It also states that this is end-of-day macro context, not an intraday trigger, which separates it from the many chart/intraday/context siblings. This is specific enough for an agent to distinguish it from tools like get_policy_rate_context or get_market_snapshot without opening their schemas.

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 gives clear usage context: use it for macro-level real-yield context at end-of-day frequency, and do not treat it as an intraday trigger. It also explains the optional as_of behavior. However, it does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools or give an exclusion such as 'if you need the policy rate, use get_policy_rate_context instead,' so it falls just short of fully explicit routing.

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