get_metrics

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds value by specifying the kind of data exposed, but it does not disclose behavioral details such as whether metrics are cached, real-time, aggregated over a window, or how the response is shaped. With annotations covering the safety profile, this is an acceptable but not rich disclosure.

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 compact phrase with no filler or repetition. Every listed item adds information about the tool's output scope, making it appropriately sized for a parameterless metrics endpoint.

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 no-input, read-only metrics tool, the description covers the main return categories, which is the most important missing information given there is no output schema. However, it does not mention response format, time range, units, or whether metrics are historical or live, leaving some ambiguity in a completely open world.

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 parameter semantics burden on the description. Per the baseline for 0-param tools, a score of 4 is appropriate; the description uses the available space to explain what the returned metrics cover instead.

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 distinct resource—metrics—and lists its specific content areas: order states, latencies, safe errors, slippage, and Brier scores for resolved forecasts. It does not use an explicit verb like 'retrieves' or 'returns', but the tool name and noun-phrase list make the purpose reasonably clear and distinguish it from sibling get_* 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?

There is no guidance about when to use get_metrics versus get_status, get_market_snapshot, get_trade_history, or other sibling tools. The description relies entirely on the name and metric list, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate selection context.

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