get_currenciesList all supported currencies with codes and full names. Use to verify currency codes before converting or checking rates.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| count | Yes | Total number of supported currencies | |
| currencies | Yes | List of supported currencies sorted by code |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "count": {
+ "description": "Total number of supported currencies",
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ "currencies": {
+ "description": "List of supported currencies sorted by code",
+ "items": {
+ "properties": {
+ "code": {
+ "description": "Currency code",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "name": {
+ "description": "Full currency name",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "code",
+ "name"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "count",
+ "currencies"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {}
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that it returns codes and full names, but this is minimal beyond what annotations provide. No contradictory behaviors disclosed.
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 short sentences, front-loading the primary action ('List all supported currencies') and then adding the usage context. 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?
With no parameters, an output schema, and comprehensive annotations, the description fully captures the tool's purpose and usage context. Nothing further is needed for a simple list operation.
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 tool accepts zero parameters, so the description does not need to explain parameter semantics. Per the baseline for 0-param tools, this rates a 4.
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 'List all supported currencies with codes and full names', which is a specific verb-resource pair. It also positions it as a reference tool for verifying codes before conversion or rate checks, distinguishing it from siblings like get_rate and convert.
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 'Use to verify currency codes before converting or checking rates', providing clear context for when to use this tool. It implies a distinction from conversion/rate tools but does not explicitly name alternative tools.
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.