FXHUB

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description goes well beyond them: it says the answer is indicative only with nothing exchanged, that commission is none, and that the response carries the rate used, the applicable side, hours/limits notes and special-rate eligibility. That is substantive behavior an agent cannot infer from the 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?

Purpose and the user-voice examples are front-loaded, and the closing "Indicative only: nothing is exchanged" is a well-placed caveat. The middle enumeration of return fields (hours, limits, commission, timing, special rate, ruble terms) is a long run-on list that could be tightened.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must describe what comes back — and it does, covering the converted result, rate used, side, and ancillary notes. Combined with the readOnly annotations and full schema coverage, an agent has everything needed to call this 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents amount, from, to and both enums (channel, language). The description only reinforces amount/from/to indirectly through its examples and adds nothing about channel defaulting or language selection, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a concrete verb and outcome — converting an amount at FXHUB's live rate — and the two quoted example queries make the resource unambiguous. It is clearly a calculator rather than a rate-list, but it never names the sibling get_exchange_rates, so a sibling distinction is only implied by the examples.

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 two quoted user questions ("How much is 1,000 USD in GEL?", "How many euros for 5,000 GEL?") give concrete trigger conditions, which is strong context for when to call. It stops short of exclusions or naming alternatives, so an agent gets a positive trigger but no rule for preferring this over get_exchange_rates.

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 read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context: these are standard rates, special/custom rates may be offered for larger amounts and are explained in the result, and ruble coverage depends on requesting a RUB pair.

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 front-loaded and well organized, moving from what the tool returns to usage examples and pair guidance. It is somewhat long but the length is largely justified by the rate types and RUB nuance.

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 output schema, the description adequately explains the conceptual return content: online and cash buy/sell rates plus the NBG official rate, with special rates noted in the result. It is complete enough for an agent to call the tool correctly, though it omits any response-format detail.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful pair semantics beyond the schema, especially the instruction to request a RUB pair for ruble-related questions; however, it adds little about the channel and language parameters beyond what the schema already documents.

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 states a specific resource and scope: live FXHUB exchange rates for online bank transfer, cash exchange point, and NBG official rate. It is clear what the tool retrieves, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling convert_currency tool.

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?

It gives concrete example questions and explains that an empty pair returns all pairs, plus a specific instruction to request a RUB pair for ruble-related questions. It does not explicitly say when to use convert_currency instead, but the context is otherwise clear.

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 annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful scope information (which subjects are covered, that answers cover channels and regulation), but says nothing about whether the content is static or how the answer is shaped. With annotations carrying the behavioral load, this is adequate but thin.

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 one long run-on sentence that piles a laundry list of topics together with commas and 'and'. It is front-loaded with the cost-and-mechanics framing, which helps, but the remaining enumeration is unstructured and would read better as a short list of covered subjects.

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 zero-required-parameter informational tool with no output schema, the description covers the subject matter thoroughly and the language parameter is fully documented in the schema. The only gap is that it never states the response is a text answer in the requested language, which an agent must infer from the parameter description.

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 is only one optional parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, with the schema already explaining the en/ka/ru enum and the default. The description adds nothing about language selection or defaulting behavior, so baseline 3 applies.

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 opening clause states the resource clearly: informational content about how FXHUB works, its cost, channels, opening hours, limits and regulation. The enumerated topic list lets an agent distinguish this from the sibling convert_currency and get_exchange_rates tools, which do operations rather than return reference facts. It lacks an explicit verb like 'return' or 'explain', which keeps it just short of a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied by the topic list: an agent can infer it should call this for questions about fees, hours, limits or contacts. There is no explicit statement of when to call it versus the sibling tools, and no exclusions such as 'do not use for live rates' – that boundary is left to be inferred from the sibling names.

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