toolalize-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that exchange rates are 'LIVE exchange rates (refreshed every 6h)', which is a useful behavioral trait. However, it does not mention error handling, rate limits, or idempotency. With no annotations, the description only partially covers the safety profile.

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 and immediately conveys the core functionality and a key usage hint. Every sentence adds value, and the most important information (conversion using live rates) comes first. 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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description should explain the return value (e.g., converted amount). It does not. It also lacks details on handling invalid codes, negative values, or precision. Given the simplicity and sibling tools, the description is incomplete for an agent to use it without additional inference.

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 67% (from and to have descriptions, value does not). The description adds no extra meaning for the value parameter beyond what the schema already provides for from and to (ISO 4217 codes). Since coverage is below 80%, the description should compensate for the undocumented parameter, but it does not.

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 'Convert an amount between currencies using LIVE exchange rates', specifying the verb (convert), resource (currencies), and a key detail (live rates). It also mentions ISO 4217 codes, which distinguishes it from sibling convert_units that deals with unit conversions.

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: 'This is the tool to use instead of estimating rates from memory.' This tells the agent when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly exclude scenarios (e.g., when offline) or mention sibling tools like convert_units or list_units as 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states that units resolve by id or symbol and optionally by category, but it does not discuss error behavior (e.g., invalid units), conversion precision, or side effects. This is insufficient for a mutation-like tool.

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 consists of two concise sentences with no redundancy. The first sentence front-loads the verb and resource, and the second sentence provides a key usage guideline.

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 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the basic purpose and parameter resolution but omits details like return format, error handling, or valid unit sources. It is adequate for a simple conversion tool but not exhaustive.

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 75%, and the description adds that units resolve by id or symbol, which supplements the schema descriptions for 'to' and 'from'. It also explains the 'category' parameter's purpose. However, it does not describe the 'value' parameter beyond the schema's type.

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 explicitly states the verb 'Convert' and the resource 'units of the same category', listing example categories. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling 'convert_currency' by directing currency conversions to that 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?

The description clearly tells the agent when not to use this tool (for currency, use convert_currency) and implies to use for non-currency conversions. However, it does not mention when to use the sibling 'list_units' or other prerequisites.

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?

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It accurately describes a read operation with no side effects, and specifies the return content: categories with unit ids, symbols, and names. It does not discuss auth or rate limits, but for a simple read tool this is adequate.

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?

A single, clear sentence that is front-loaded with the primary function and ends with usage guidance. Every word adds value, no waste.

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 zero parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description fully covers what the tool does, what it returns, and why to use it. It is complete for an agent to decide invocation.

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 input schema is empty (0 parameters), so description value is assessed on added context. The description explicitly enumerates the returned fields (id, symbol, name), adding meaning beyond the schema's emptiness.

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 lists conversion categories and their units (id, symbol, name), with a specific verb 'list' and resource. It distinguishes from the sibling 'convert_units' by noting it is for vocabulary discovery before 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 explicitly says to call this before convert_units, providing clear when-to-use guidance. It does not address convert_currency, but that is a separate domain; the guidance is sufficient for the primary sibling.

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