US Petroleum Spot Prices

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint, openWorldHint. The description adds context by listing available frequencies (daily/weekly/monthly/annual) and stating the data is 'EIA public domain', which implies openness. It does not contradict annotations.

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 extremely concise: two sentences that front-load the most important information (products, frequencies, data source). No wasted words; every element 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?

Given the presence of annotations and an output schema, the description is mostly complete. It covers the key aspects (products, frequencies, source) but could optionally mention that the tool returns time-series price data, though this is implied by 'spot prices'.

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 100% coverage with parameter descriptions. The description adds value by providing concrete product code examples (e.g., 'EPCBRENT') and listing available frequencies, which helps the agent understand valid inputs beyond the schema.

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 name, title, and description clearly indicate the tool provides spot prices for crude oil and petroleum products. The description lists specific product codes (WTI, Brent, Diesel, Regular Gas) which distinguishes it from sibling tools like finance.eia.electricity or finance.eia.natural_gas.

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 implies usage through its purpose (e.g., 'Spot prices for crude oil...') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like finance.eia.series. No exclusions or alternative tool names are mentioned.

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