Retrieve de-noised real-time commodity and FX market regimes with physical hedging actions for symbols like copper, gold, crude, CNH, lithium, aluminum, and freight.
Returns de-noised real-time commodity/FX market regime and physical hedging actions (Copper, Gold, Crude, CNH, Lithium, Aluminum, SCFI Freight).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| symbol | Yes | Commodity symbol (e.g. COPPER, GOLD, CRUDE, USDCNH, LITHIUM, ALUMINUM, SCFI) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully signals that the data is de-noised and real-time and that the output includes physical hedging actions, but it does not describe permissions, data freshness constraints, return shape, or rate limits.
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 definition is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted text. The commodity/FX list is compact and useful for setting scope.
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?
For a one-parameter retrieval tool with high schema coverage, the description gives the minimum needed to understand what is returned. However, with no output schema, it does not explain the return structure, timeframe, or how to interpret the regime and hedging actions, leaving clear gaps.
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 single required parameter has 100% schema description coverage and the schema already lists example symbols. The description repeats some examples but adds no additional symbol semantics or formatting rules beyond the schema, so the baseline 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?
States a specific verb ('Returns') and a clearly scoped resource: de-noised real-time commodity/FX market regime plus physical hedging actions. It lists the supported commodity/FX symbols, making its purpose distinguishable from the unrelated sibling tools.
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 explains what the tool returns but gives no explicit guidance on when to use it, when not to use it, or which alternatives to prefer. Sibling tools are unrelated, so the intended context is inferable, but the description itself provides no usage rules.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.