create_commodity

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

With all annotations set to false, the description confirms this is a mutation ('Create a new commodity'). It adds useful constraints such as 'Unique within namespace' and explains the fraction and namespace semantics. However, it does not disclose duplicate-handling behavior, error conditions, or what the created object looks like beyond the output schema.

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 compact, well-organized docstring. Every line adds meaning: the purpose line is followed by focused parameter definitions with inline examples. There is no fluff or repetition of schema properties beyond what is needed for clarity.

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?

Since an output schema exists, return-value documentation is not needed. All parameters are fully explained, and the namespace/fraction guidance gives practical context. The main gap is the lack of explicit duplicate-name or error behavior, which would make it fully complete for a create tool.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries full responsibility for parameter meaning. It thoroughly documents all five parameters with concrete examples, defaults, allowed namespace values, and fraction semantics. This is exemplary compensation for a schema with no property descriptions.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Create a new commodity (stock, mutual fund, etc.)'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_prices or create_account, and the examples disambiguate what a 'commodity' means in this system.

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—use this tool when you need to add a new tradable commodity—but it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over alternatives or what conditions should be checked first (e.g., verifying the commodity does not already exist). No exclusions or sibling comparisons are provided.

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