openbb_makro_gostergeler

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full transparency burden. It only says 'getir' (fetch), implying a read operation, but does not disclose data source characteristics, latency, caching, authentication requirements, or potential for missing data. The OpenBB integration mention adds some context but is insufficient for a complete behavioral profile.

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 a single sentence, efficiently structured with the action verb and a comma-separated list of assets. It is front-loaded with the key information and contains no unnecessary words, making it appropriately concise.

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?

Given zero parameters and the presence of an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values. It lists the specific data categories (USD/TRY, EUR/TRY, BIST100, Altın, Petrol, S&P500) and the integration source (OpenBB). Minor gaps remain, such as data frequency or caveats, but the tool is simple and the description is mostly complete.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so there is no need for parameter documentation. According to the rubric, a tool with 0 parameters receives a baseline of 4. The description does not need to add any parameter semantics because there are none.

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 clearly states the action ('getir' - fetch) and the specific resources: USD/TRY, EUR/TRY, BIST100, Gold, Oil and S&P500 macro data via OpenBB integration. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like openbb_hisse_analiz and tcmb_evds_gostergeler due to the explicit asset list and integration source.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative tools. While the asset list implies usage when these macro indicators are needed, there is no explicit differentiation from siblings such as tcmb_evds_gostergeler.

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