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

With no annotations at all, this description carries the full behavioral burden and does a fair job: it discloses that results are quotations with public source links, that the feed is bounded by the plan's latest available day, and that free plans incur a 48-hour delay. It stops short of stating pagination/volume limits, what an empty result looks like, or whether the feed is strictly read-only, so it falls short of a 5.

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 what the feed contains before moving to filtering and plan mechanics. The em-dash enumeration of event types is informative but slightly long; overall tight with little wasted text.

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?

An output schema exists, so return structure needn't be spelled out, and the description still sketches the item shape (quotation plus source link). Plan-tier delay and filtering are covered. Minor gaps remain: behavior when both country and currency are supplied, and whether the event-type list is 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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine meaning: 'filter by country or currency' signals these are alternative narrowing dimensions rather than combinable ones, and 'days back from the latest day of your plan' clarifies that the window is anchored to the plan's most recent data rather than to today — a nuance the schema's '1–90, default 7' does not convey.

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 specific verb-like resource: a dated feed of FX-moving events in emerging markets, with concrete examples (devaluations, withdrawal limits, stablecoin bans, currency controls, payment outages) and the return form (short quotation plus source link). It is clear what an agent gets back, but it never distinguishes itself from nearby siblings such as get_stress_signals or get_rail_incidents, which plausibly overlap with 'payment outages'.

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 gives operational context — filter by country or currency, and `days` counted back from the latest day of the plan, with free tier limited to a 48-hour delay — which implies when the tool is useful (recent country/currency-specific news events). However, it offers no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance versus get_stress_signals, get_rail_incidents, or get_rate_history, leaving the agent to infer routing.

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