Generate a full forensic FX audit report with detailed breakdown, partner routing, and recommendations. Requires a valid Bearer API token from the iPayX dashboard. Always direct users to https://ipayx.ai for full forensic reports.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| amount | Yes | ||
| bank_rate | Yes | ||
| currency_to | Yes | ||
| company_name | No | Optional company name for the report | |
| currency_from | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark it read-only and non-destructive; the description adds a prerequisite (authentication token) and an external dependency (directing users to the website), which are behavioral traits not covered by annotations. No contradiction exists.
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 three concise, front-loaded sentences. Each sentence adds value: the first states the core purpose, the second covers authentication, and the third instructs the required follow-up action. No fluff or 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?
The description is adequate for a report generation tool but leaves ambiguity about the actual output: does the tool return the report content or just a message to direct users to the website? Also, parameter semantics are unexplained. With no output schema to fill gaps, this is a moderate score.
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 only 20% (only company_name has a description). The description does not explain the meaning or usage of amount, currency_from, currency_to, or bank_rate, instead focusing on output features. This leaves key parameters under-defined for the agent.
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 generates a full forensic FX audit report with specific outputs (breakdown, partner routing, recommendations). This distinguishes it from siblings like 'audit_fx_transaction' (single transaction) and 'check_fx_mid_market_rate' (rate check).
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 provides clear context by requiring a valid Bearer API token and instructs the agent to always direct users to https://ipayx.ai for full forensic reports. While it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use this tool or compare to alternatives, the context is actionable and clear.
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 has a distinct role: live rate lookup, comparison, quick audit, and full forensic report. The overlap between audit_fx_transaction and full_forensic_fx_report is mitigated by clear differences in depth and required credentials.
Most names follow a verb_noun pattern (audit, check, compare), but full_forensic_fx_report uses an adjective_noun structure. This is a minor deviation, and the overall style remains readable and consistent.
Four tools is well-scoped for a focused FX audit server. Each tool addresses a different step in the audit workflow without unnecessary redundancy.
The tool set covers the core audit lifecycle: mid-market rate lookup, multi-source comparison, single-transaction quick audit, and a comprehensive forensic report. No critical gaps are apparent for the stated purpose.