convert_eur_czkConverts an EUR amount to CZK using the Czech National Bank daily exchange rate (the rate used for Czech tax purposes). Reports the rate, its publication date and whether a stale cached ČNB publication had to be used. Fails closed when no verified ČNB rate is available.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| amountEur | Yes | Amount in EUR |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates no side effects. The description goes beyond that by disclosing that the tool reports the rate's publication date, may use a stale cached ČNB publication, and fails closed if no verified rate is available. This is valuable operational context.
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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the purpose, and every sentence adds either operational detail or failure behavior. No redundancy or filler.
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?
The description covers the core conversion, the rate source, output specifics (rate, publication date, stale flag), and failure mode. It does not explicitly say the converted CZK amount is part of the output, but that is strongly implied by the verb 'converts.' Given the simplicity and full parameter schema, this is near-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?
The schema fully describes the only parameter, amountEur, with name, description, and numeric constraints. Schema coverage is 100%, so the description does not need to add parameter meaning, and it does not. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 converts EUR to CZK using the Czech National Bank daily rate, and explicitly notes its use for Czech tax purposes. This specific verb+resource pair distinguishes it from the sibling tax-related tools, none of which perform currency conversion.
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 clear context: use this tool when you need EUR→CZK conversion at the CNB rate for Czech tax purposes. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, but no sibling tool covers the same function, so the context is sufficient.
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.
Most tools have clear distinct purposes, but calc_set_aside overlaps with compute_year (both compute safe-to-spend) and the flat-tax tools (check_flat_tax_eligibility, get_flat_tax_band, calc_flat_tax_settlement) could be confused without careful reading. Overall, descriptions are detailed enough to resolve ambiguity.
Nearly all tools follow a verb_noun pattern, but 'czech_working_days' is a noun phrase and the verbs vary (calc, compute, check, compare, convert, estimate, get). The use of both 'calc' and 'compute' for calculations is a minor inconsistency, but the pattern is still readable and predictable.
14 tools is well within the ideal range for a complex tax domain. Each tool addresses a distinct aspect (calculations, eligibility, deadlines, penalties, rules, currency, working days) and none seems redundant, making the count appropriate.
The tool surface covers the main OSVČ tax lifecycle: income tax, social/health insurance, flat tax, VAT thresholds, deadlines, penalties, and working days. A notable gap is the absence of a dedicated advance-payment (zálohy) calculation tool, though compute_year and get_rule_source can partially address this.