CurrencyGuard Guard Pricing

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, indicating safe read operation. Description adds that the tool uses approved product and FAQ content, implying no side effects or dynamic behavior.

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?

Two efficient sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then list of covered topics. No redundant 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?

With no parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers the tool's behavior (explanation using approved content) and scope. No gaps.

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?

Input schema has zero parameters, so description cannot add parameter meaning. Baseline 4 applies as no extra semantics needed.

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 explains the Guard product and enumerates specific topics (how it works, comparisons, legal questions). It distinguishes from sibling tools that deal with rates or pricing.

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 when an explanation of the Guard product is needed. Sibling tools are clearly different (rates, settlement), but no explicit when-not-to-use or alternative guidance is given.

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

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

The description adds substantial context beyond annotations: it explains that rates are derived from interest rate differentials, rounded, and indicative-only. It details all return fields and their meaning, including the interpretation of negative/positive forward points. This fully informs the agent about the tool's behavior and limitations.

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 concise (3 sentences plus a list of returns), front-loaded with the core purpose, and includes an illustrative example. Every sentence adds necessary information without redundancy.

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 no output schema, the description fully covers the return object (forwardRate, forwardPoints, spotMid, settlementDate) and explains how to interpret forward points. It also provides usage context (indicative only) and an example. This is complete for the tool's complexity.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by providing an example (base=GBP, quote=USD, tenor=3M) and clarifying that tenor can be '1W, 1M, 3M, 6M, 1Y'. It also explains the meaning of return fields which indirectly reinforces parameter purpose.

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 it 'Get an indicative forward FX rate for a currency pair at a specific tenor.' It specifies the verb (Get), resource (forward FX rate), and scope (indicative, specific tenor, currency pair). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_spot_rate (spot rates) and resolve_settlement_date (only settlement date).

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 explicitly states that the rates are 'for illustration purposes only — not for execution,' guiding when not to use. It also provides an example (base=GBP, quote=USD, tenor=3M) to illustrate usage. However, it does not explicitly compare to siblings or state when to use this tool instead of get_spot_rate or others.

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

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

ReadOnlyHint and destructiveHint are correctly annotated. Description adds value by detailing return structure (6 entries, fields) and interpreting results based on payReceive. No contradictions.

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?

Description is well-structured, front-loading purpose and gradually adding details. Each sentence adds value, though slightly verbose in explaining the return array. Still efficient.

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?

No output schema, but description thoroughly explains the return structure and field meanings. Also covers interpretation logic. Fully equips an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 100%, so baseline 3. Description adds overarching constraint that parameters must match price_guard, reinforcing schema descriptions. Additional context about alignment with preceding call raises value above 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?

Description clearly states it analyzes historic best/worst FX performance for a currency pair over a Guard's duration, using Bank of England rates. The purpose is specific and distinct from siblings like price_guard or get_spot_rate.

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?

Explicitly states parameters must match the preceding price_guard call, and explains interpretation of BEST/WORST for PAY vs RECEIVE. Provides clear context but lacks explicit when-not or alternative tool mentions.

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

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds that rates are 'rounded' and 'indicative', and returns 'bid, ask, and mid rates', which goes beyond annotations to disclose behavior without contradiction.

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?

Two sentences that are front-loaded with purpose and essential usage guidance. No wasted words; every sentence adds value.

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 simple string params, no output schema, and good annotations, the description covers purpose, usage limitation, and an example. It is fully adequate for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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 covers 100% with descriptions for base and quote (ISO codes). The description adds an example ('base=GBP, quote=USD returns the GBPUSD rate'), clarifying order and combination beyond schema.

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 'Get an indicative spot FX rate for a currency pair', specifying the verb (get) and resource (spot FX rate). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_forward_rate and get_historic_best_worst by focusing on the spot rate.

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 explicitly says 'for illustration purposes only — not for execution', providing clear guidance on when to use (indicative rates) and when not (trading). It lacks explicit mention of alternatives but the sibling list provides context.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description adds concrete return values. It does not contradict annotations and provides useful context beyond structured data.

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?

Single sentence with no wasted words, front-loaded with action and result. Perfectly concise.

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 parameterless listing tool with rich annotations, the description fully explains what the tool returns and is complete given the low complexity.

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?

There are no parameters, so the description is not required to add parameter information. The tool is self-explanatory with zero input.

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 uses a clear verb ('list') and specifies the exact set of currency pairs, distinguishing it from sibling tools that deal with rates, pricing, and explanations.

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 implicitly guides the agent to use this tool to discover supported currency pairs before querying rates, but does not explicitly state when to use alternatives or provide exclusion criteria.

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

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, but description adds context: all quotes are indicative, and lists the return fields (guardType, guardRate, etc.). No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Two sentences front-loaded with purpose and workflow guidance, followed by a list of return fields. No redundant words; every sentence adds value.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description enumerates all return fields and states quotes are indicative. It also provides context about calling a sibling tool. For a pricing tool with 6 params, this is complete guidance.

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 100% with clear descriptions for all 6 parameters. Description adds extra value by explaining the optional 'guardRate' can be used for a fixed strike and giving workflow guidance, going beyond the schema.

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 it prices a 'Guard' — an FX protection product. The title 'Price a Guard' and description specify the exact verb and resource. Sibling tools like 'price_guard_extension' and 'resolve_settlement_date' are differentiated.

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?

Explicitly instructs to call 'resolve_settlement_date' first if a tenor is given, then use this tool. This provides clear when-to-use guidance and references a sibling tool, aiding correct sequencing.

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

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true (safe read operation) and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it explains the estimation nature, clarifies that both quotes use the same guard rate to isolate tenor effect, and breaks down the cost components. No contradiction.

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 well-structured, front-loading purpose and behavior before usage. It is slightly verbose but every sentence adds value. Could be trimmed slightly, but overall concise for the complexity.

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 tool has 6 parameters, no output schema, and no enums, the description provides comprehensive coverage: it explains the estimation logic, usage scenario, and behavioral nuance about the guard rate. The return breakdown is described, which compensates for the missing output schema.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the relationship between parameters and the calculation (e.g., feeDifference, guardSpreadCost, extensionMargin) and context for the dates. However, it does not elaborate on individual parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema.

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: 'Get an indicative price for extending a Guard to a later settlement date.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'price_guard' by explicitly describing the extension scenario and referencing the formula breakdown.

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 explicit usage guidelines: 'Use this when a customer asks "how much would it cost to extend my Guard by X months?"' and notes that parameters match price_guard plus dates, clearly indicating when to use this tool vs alternatives.

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

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

Description explains the return value accounts for weekends/holidays; annotations indicate read-only and non-destructive, with no contradictions.

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?

Concise sentences with front-loaded purpose, examples, and usage instruction; no 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?

Describes return value (settlement date with holiday adjustment) and directs to price_guard; despite no output schema, it is adequate for the task.

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?

Adds meaning beyond schema by explaining tenor format with examples and currency pair format; schema coverage is 100%.

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 resolves a relative time period to a business settlement date for a currency pair, with examples distinguishing it from siblings like price_guard.

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?

Explicitly says when to use (when user gives relative time like '3 months') and directs to use output for price_guard, but lacks explicit when not to use.

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