COMPUTE. Convert between major currencies (USD, EUR, GBP, JPY, CAD, AUD, CHF, CNY, INR) with Decimal precision. Static offline table by default; live/historical ECB rates via date/live=true.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| date | No | ||
| live | No | ||
| amount | Yes | ||
| to_currency | Yes | ||
| from_currency | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals Decimal precision, the static offline table default, and the use of ECB rates for live/historical data. This goes beyond a simple conversion statement, though it doesn't cover error handling or edge cases.
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 the action word 'COMPUTE.' and no redundant information. Every phrase contributes to the tool's purpose and behavior.
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 5-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the core functionality, supported currencies, precision, and rate modes. It omits output format and date format, but these are minor gaps given the tool's simplicity.
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 description adds context for the date and live parameters by linking them to live/historical ECB rates. It also lists supported currency codes, but doesn't explain amount, from_currency, or to_currency beyond their schema names. With 0% schema coverage, more parameter detail would be helpful.
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 converts between major currencies, listing specific currencies. The verb 'convert' and resource 'currencies' are specific, and it is distinct from sibling calc tools like calc_business_days or calc_loan_amortization.
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 for when to use the tool (currency conversion) and explains the two modes (static offline vs live/historical via date/live=true). It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling set makes it obvious this is the currency tool.
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.
Most tools have clear, distinct purposes across three namespaces (calc_, decide_, sim_) plus composites. Some conceptual overlap exists (e.g., decide_sensitivity vs. sim_sensitivity, decide_score vs. decide), but descriptions clarify the boundaries well.
Names follow a consistent snake_case convention with a namespace prefix (calc_, decide_, sim_) and a descriptive verb_noun structure. Even composite tools and utilities like health_check and list_capabilities fit the pattern.
24 tools is on the heavier side, but it's justified for a meta-server exposing three distinct engines plus cross-domain composites. The count is appropriately scoped for the breadth of capabilities advertised.
The set covers all core domains with discovery (list_capabilities, *_list_*), health_check, and composite tools linking simulation to decision and valuation. Minor gaps include lack of a template management tool, but sim_run accepts free-form models, mitigating this.