dropcoin-utility

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that the operation costs 2 credits and requires an API key, which are important operational details. It also implies a read-only nature (ECB reference rates) and describes the two behaviors. It does not explicitly state side effects or error handling, but for a simple lookup 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?

The description is three short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose ('ECB reference rates'), followed by concise usage instructions and necessary caveats (credits, API key). Every clause is informative and there is no redundant wording.

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 the tool's simplicity (3 optional parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers purpose, usage, cost, and auth. It does not explicitly describe the return format, but the phrasing 'full latest table' and 'convert' implies the response structure. This is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool, though a bit more detail on return shape would make it 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It does so effectively: 'from' and 'to' are currency codes implied by context, 'amount' defaults to 1, and omitting both fetches the full table. This goes beyond the schema (which only provides patterns and types) by explaining the role and optionality of each parameter.

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 provides ECB reference rates and supports two modes: full table or conversion. It is distinct from sibling tools (holidays, timezone, VAT, IBAN) and uses specific language like 'Omit from/to for the full latest table, or pass from+to (+amount, default 1) to convert', making the purpose unmistakable.

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 explicit instructions on how to use the tool in its two modes ('Omit from/to...' and 'pass from+to...'), which serves as clear usage context. However, it does not mention when not to use it or name any alternative tools, so it lacks explicit exclusionary guidance, but the guidance provided is clear enough for a 4.

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 carries the burden. It discloses cost (2 credits) and authentication requirements (API key), which are non-obvious behavioral traits. It also clarifies the year restriction and German-region scoping. It does not describe response format, but for a simple lookup this is acceptable.

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 sentence that front-loads the core purpose and adds essential operational details (credits, API key) without fluff. Every word earns its place.

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 3-parameter lookup tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers purpose, scope, parameters, cost, and auth. It lacks response format information, but the tool's simplicity makes this a minor gap.

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 has no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), but the description adds meaning: country is an EU country, year is restricted to 2026-2028, and region is optional and specifically German. This goes beyond the raw schema patterns and enums.

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 retrieves public holidays for an EU country and year, with optional German region filtering. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_fx_rate or get_timezone.

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?

Provides clear context: EU countries, year range (2026-2028), and optional German region. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, but the purpose is self-evident relative to siblings.

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 provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It reveals the tool requires an API key, costs 1 credit, and returns specific data (UTC offset, DST flag, local time) or a zone list. It does not cover error cases or invalid inputs, but it provides 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 a single sentence that front-loads the primary output, then seamlessly mentions the alternative mode and adds essential cost/auth details. There is no wasted wording or repetition of schema constraints.

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 simple tool with one parameter, the description covers the core behavior, both input modes, and the required API key and credit cost. It does not explicitly describe the output format or error handling, but given no output schema exists, the description still provides enough context for a basic understanding.

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 only defines 'zone' with a pattern and length constraints, giving no semantic meaning. The description compensates by explaining that 'zone' can be either an IANA timezone (e.g., Europe/Berlin) or an ISO-2 country code, along with an example. This fully clarifies the parameter's meaning and usage.

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 returns current UTC offset, DST flag, and local time for an IANA zone, or a zone list for a country code. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_fx_rate or get_holidays, and the tool name aligns with this functionality.

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 implies when to use the tool by specifying the input types (IANA zone or ISO-2 country code) and the cost (1 credit) and auth requirement (API key). However, it does not explicitly compare to alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so usage guidance is implied rather than stated.

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 the transparency burden and discloses a cost (1 credit) and authentication requirement (API key), which are important behavioral traits. It does not mention response format or rate limits, but for a simple lookup 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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose, then adds cost and auth details. Every word earns its place with no 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?

For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, scope (EU countries), and access requirements (credit, API key). It does not describe the return structure, but the term 'VAT rates' gives sufficient context.

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 defines the parameter 'country' with a pattern for two uppercase letters, but the description adds no additional meaning or usage detail beyond that. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description does not compensate, yet the single parameter is well-specified in the schema itself.

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 retrieves standard and reduced VAT rates for an EU country, with the data source (EU TEDB). This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_fx_rate or get_holidays.

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 indicates the tool applies to EU countries and mentions a cost of 1 credit and API key requirement, giving clear operational context. It does not explicitly list exclusions or compare against alternatives, but the domain (VAT) is distinct from siblings.

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 the full burden of disclosure. It transparently mentions rate limiting per IP, the free tier, and the lack of an API key requirement, plus the paid endpoint's lack of IP limit. The only missing context is the exact response format, but the described behavior is adequately clear.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose and immediately followed by the rate-limit/free-info and a clear alternative. Every word earns its place, with no fluff.

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 simple single-parameter validation tool, the description covers the essential context: what it does, free vs. paid, rate limiting, and authentication. It doesn't detail the success/error response, but that is typical for such a tool and not a major gap given the low complexity.

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 0%, but the tool has only one parameter (iban) whose name and constraints are self-explanatory. The description does not elaborate on the parameter format beyond the tool's purpose, but the ISO 13616 mention implies the expected input. This is adequate but not enhanced.

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 that the tool performs a free IBAN check using ISO 13616 validation, including check digits and country length. It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools by specifying its unique domain (IBAN validation) and mentions the paid alternative, making its purpose unmistakable.

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 explicitly provides usage context: free for low-volume use, rate-limited per IP, no API key needed, and directs users to the paid HTTP endpoint for volume use. This gives clear guidance on when to use this tool versus the alternative.

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