CFTC Commitments of Traders

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses cadence (weekly) and the shape of the content (open interest, long/short by trader category), but says nothing about publication lag relative to the reporting date, pagination, default result size, or error behavior for an unrecognized market slug.

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?

A single dense sentence with the core noun phrase front-loaded and examples tucked into a parenthetical rather than bloating the prose. Slightly heavy on inline enumeration, but every clause carries information an agent needs.

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 low-complexity read tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers mode selection and the returned fields, which is the essential core. It still omits default limit/result size and any note on report recency, leaving small but real operating gaps for an agent building the call.

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 coverage is 50%: market carries a description, limit does not. The description adds value on market by listing several example slugs beyond the schema's lone 'gold' example, but it never mentions limit at all, so the undocumented half of the parameter set stays unexplained (no default, no note that the cap is 500).

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+resource: weekly CFTC Commitments of Traders positioning data. It immediately distinguishes the two retrieval modes (latest report across all markets vs a single market's history) and names the payload (open interest, long/short by trader category). None of the siblings cover CFTC positioning, so an agent can route here without ambiguity.

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 makes the mode-selection rule clear: omit the market for the latest cross-market report, supply a slug for one market's history. It gives concrete slug examples (gold, crude-oil, sp500, bitcoin, euro-fx, 10-year-note) that steer argument choice. It does not name exclusions or point to sibling tools for related datasets, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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