Convert an amount between currencies using European Central Bank daily reference rates. Keyless trial of the Currency Exchange Rates API.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | Yes | ISO currency code to convert to, e.g. EUR. | |
| from | Yes | ISO currency code to convert from, e.g. USD. | |
| amount | No | Amount to convert (default 1). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds behavioral context beyond the schema by noting the data source (ECB daily rates) and the 'Keyless trial' limitation, implying potential rate constraints. However, it does not disclose error behavior, rate limits, or whether conversion is live vs. historical.
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 very concise, containing exactly two sentences that efficiently convey the core purpose and a key detail (data source and trial nature) without any wasted words.
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?
Given the simplicity of the tool (3 simple parameters, no output schema), the description covers the essential points: conversion action, data source, and trial nature. It could mention the daily frequency or precision, but overall it is sufficiently complete.
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 100% with clear descriptions for each parameter. The description does not add significant additional meaning for the parameters beyond what the schema already provides, meeting the baseline.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose: converting currency amounts using ECB reference rates. It is distinct from all sibling tools, which handle different tasks like fetching, email validation, IP lookup, etc.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites, limitations, or best practices. The phrase 'Keyless trial' hints at trial usage but does not explicitly guide the agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct functionality (fetching URLs, converting currency, validating email, geolocating IPs, listing APIs, matching NAICS codes, fetching URL metadata), with no overlap in purpose.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case, e.g., currency_convert, ip_lookup, naics_match, ensuring predictability.
Seven tools is well-scoped for an API catalog service providing trial endpoints for a variety of utilities—neither too sparse nor overloaded.
The set covers key read-only operations for each featured API, though missing write or list operations (e.g., listing supported currencies) are minor gaps that users can work around.
