reconcile_gold_open_interest

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It does so well by disclosing the exact date-matching rule and the handling of missing dates as quality evidence. It could additionally state whether the reconciliation writes records or is read-only, but the disclosed behaviors are materially useful and non-obvious.

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 dense sentences with no filler. The primary action and data sources are front-loaded, and the crucial matching rigor is stated immediately in the second sentence. Every clause 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 description is sufficient to understand the tool's purpose, input semantics, and date-handling philosophy. The main gap is that it does not describe the shape or format of the reconciliation output, and there is no output schema to compensate; however, the tool's expected behavior is still clear enough for correct 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and both parameters are fully described in the schema: as_of as a point-in-time cutoff and weeks as the COT report weeks to inspect. The description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is 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 precise action ('Reconcile') with a specific source pair: CFTC Gold COT open interest against local first-seen CME Daily Bulletin TOTAL GC FUT open interest. This clearly differentiates it from related tools like get_cme_gold_open_interest, which presumably returns raw data rather than performing reconciliation.

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 operational constraints: only identical report/observation calendar dates are compared, and missing dates are never matched or filled. This tells an agent when the tool is appropriate (strict date-aligned reconciliation) and what to expect about date handling, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion criteria.

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