RocketChange exchange

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and closedWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds some value by naming the content included (terms, support, monitors, ratings/reviews), which hints at what an agent will get back. It does not say whether this is static reference data versus live-fetched, nor anything about the response shape, which matters because there is no output schema.

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?

It is short, but the phrasing is a sentence fragment ('The exchange itself: ...') with ambiguous referents like 'its rating and reviews are there.' It is front-loaded with the resource but not with any actionable statement of return 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 no-parameter informational tool with no output schema, the description should be the primary source of what the agent gets back. It lists content categories but not form, depth, or whether links/structured records are returned, leaving meaningful guesswork.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. Nothing in the description contradicts or complicates the empty schema.

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 fragment identifies the resource (the exchange) and enumerates the content areas it covers: site, terms, support, monitors, and review sites with ratings. There is no explicit verb or statement of what the tool returns, so the purpose is inferable rather than stated. It does partly distinguish itself from siblings (quote, reserves, pay methods, receive options) by covering reputation and terms.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this tool versus the siblings, nor any mention of prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must guess that this is the 'background/reputation' lookup and the others are transactional lookups.

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?

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, not open-world), and the description adds useful behavioral context beyond them: it enumerates the returned values (both amounts, rate, limits, requisites, exchange_link) and describes the downstream action of creating the bid on the site. It does not discuss caching, rate limits, or error cases, which keeps it below 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?

The purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the following sentences add concrete detail about inputs and outputs. There is some mild redundancy and awkward indentation, but no sentence is clearly wasted.

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 output schema, the description steps in to enumerate return values and the exchange-link workflow, which is exactly what an agent needs. Gaps remain around `lang` semantics and the source of valid method codes, but overall it is substantively complete for a read-only quote tool.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It explains `give`/`receive` as method codes and how `amount` pairs with `amount_side`, which is genuinely helpful, but it never explains the `lang` parameter or where valid method codes come from. Partial compensation only.

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 first sentence names the specific resource (a quote for an exchange) and an extra artifact (the exchange link), which clearly separates it from siblings like get_reserves or list_pay_methods. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with those siblings, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

Usage is implied by the quote workflow ('the person enters the e-mail and requisites and creates the bid'), but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to siblings such as list_receive_options. The agent must infer that this is the final quoting step after discovering methods.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint=false, so the safety and determinism profile is covered structurally. The description adds one piece of behavioral context — 'now', implying a live, point-in-time snapshot rather than historical data — but says nothing about staleness, caching, or whether figures are guaranteed.

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?

One tight sentence with no filler, and the core concept (payable amounts per currency) is front-loaded. The trailing parenthetical about grouping is slightly awkward but still short and purposeful.

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 output schema, the description carries the burden of describing the return value; it does give grouping order but omits units, whether method-level rows are nested under currency, and whether amounts are raw or aggregated. For a simple annotated read tool this is borderline adequate but leaves real gaps.

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 0%, so the single 'currency' parameter is undocumented unless the description compensates. The phrase '(by currency, then method)' describes how results are grouped/ordered, not whether the currency argument filters to one currency or how null behaves, so the parameter's meaning remains ambiguous.

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 conveys the resource (reserves, i.e. how much of each currency the exchange can pay out) and implies a read, but never uses a verb like 'get' or 'list' and gives no differentiation from siblings such as get_quote or list_pay_methods. An agent can infer the domain but must guess at the operation's shape (single snapshot vs. detailed report).

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?

There is no explicit statement of when to use this tool versus get_quote or list_pay_methods, nor any precondition or exclusion. The only implicit cue is 'can pay out now', which vaguely suggests checking liquidity before a payout, but the agent must infer this entirely.

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?

Annotations already declare this read-only, idempotent, and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds useful relational context: each method has a `code` used by other tools, and search spans name, currency, code, or network. It does not describe return shape, ordering, or whether the method list is static, which would help for a lookup 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 purpose is front-loaded and the description is short. The `code` and `search` details are relevant. Formatting with hard line breaks is slightly awkward but not wasteful.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should explain enough about the returned methods. It mentions each method has a `code`, but it does not describe other likely fields or how `side` and `lang` affect results. Adequate for a simple lookup, but with clear gaps.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It explains `search` well with concrete examples, but leaves `side` and `lang` substantially undocumented. The give/receive framing hints at `side`, but it does not explain the `all` default or the language toggle.

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?

It clearly states the resource: pay methods of the exchange, split into what the client can give and receive. The verb is implicitly "list," but the purpose is unmistakable. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling list_receive_options, which is the main clarity gap.

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 browsing available payment methods but gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus list_receive_options, get_quote, or get_reserves. There are no exclusions or routing cues for an agent choosing among 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?

The annotations already state readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds almost nothing beyond that: it does not explain result shape, filtering behavior, localization behavior, pagination, or what happens with an unknown method code.

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 with no wasted words, which is structurally efficient. However, the parenthetical '(by its `code`)' is slightly confusing because the parameter itself is named `give`, and the sentence is too terse to structure the three-parameter 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?

There is no output schema, three parameters with 0% schema description coverage, and only one sentence of description. The annotations cover read-only/idempotent behavior, but the definition still lacks enough detail about inputs and return values for an agent to invoke it confidently.

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 0%, so the description must explain all three parameters. It only hints that 'give' relates to a method code, and it says nothing about the `lang` enum or the nullable `search` parameter. This leaves the agent guessing about accepted values and filtering semantics.

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 conveys that the tool returns receive options for a method supplied by code, so the broad purpose is inferable. However, it never explicitly says it lists options, and 'what the client can receive' is ambiguous without domain context. It does not clearly distinguish itself from list_pay_methods or other siblings.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus list_pay_methods or other siblings, no exclusions, and no prerequisites. The only usage signal is the implicit dependency on a method code, which is not enough to route an agent reliably.

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