Fed liquidity

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'oldest first' and 'weekly', which gives some output ordering and frequency context, but it doesn't disclose data source behavior, caching, error handling for invalid series, rate limits, or the distinction in output shape between the net-liquidity mode and single-series mode. For a two-mode financial data tool with zero annotations, this is under-specified.

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, information-dense sentence that front-loads the primary resource and its definition, then appends the alternative mode. It's efficient, though the long parenthetical and series list make it slightly less front-loaded and scannable than ideal.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and 50% schema description coverage, the description needs to be more complete. It doesn't explain the return shape for either mode, how the series list maps to the net-liquidity components, or edge cases like invalid series IDs or the interaction between limit and series. An agent could call it but would be uncertain about expected output.

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%: the 'limit' parameter is documented in the schema (default 52, up to 2000), but the 'series' parameter has no schema description. The tool description lists the FRED series IDs (WALCL, WRESBAL, RRPONTSYD, WTREGEN, SOFR, EFFR, IORB, WSHOSHO), which partially compensates by indicating valid values, but it doesn't explain the mutual exclusivity or behavioral difference when series is provided versus omitted. The description adds some value but leaves the core parameter semantics unclear.

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 names a specific data resource (weekly US net liquidity) and defines its composition (Fed balance sheet minus TGA minus reverse repo), plus an alternate mode for individual FRED series. This distinguishes it from macro siblings like macro_series or economic_calendar, though the two-mode structure (net liquidity series vs. single series) adds some ambiguity about which mode is primary.

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?

Usage is implied by the description: use it to get weekly net liquidity data, or specify a FRED series ID for a component series. However, there's no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over sibling tools like macro_series, or on how the series parameter interaction with the net-liquidity mode works. The agent has to infer the selection logic.

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