create_currency

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

The description adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations already provide. Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, but the description does not elaborate on potential side effects, permission requirements, or expected behavior after creation. For a write operation, agents would benefit from knowing what changes are made and what invariants hold.

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 extremely short ('Create a currency'), which is concise but under-specified. It does not earn its place by adding meaningful guidance or context. The one-sentence format is clear, but the lack of substance makes it less useful than a more complete but still efficient description.

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 create operation with two parameters and no output schema, the description should explain what is returned or how to confirm success. It does not mention return values, error cases, or the openWorldHint implication of side effects. The schema and annotations cover basic constraints, but the description leaves significant gaps in operational 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the schema provides detailed descriptions for both 'name' (including format and uniqueness) and 'round_factor' (including an example). The description itself does not add any parameter information beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Create a currency' clearly identifies the action (create) and resource (currency). While it does not provide additional scope or differentiate from sibling tools like update_currency or delete_currency, the verb alone makes the primary purpose unambiguous. It is a step above a tautology because it conveys a specific operation, but it lacks the detail seen in higher-scoring examples.

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 alternatives. No context, prerequisites, or exclusion criteria are provided. The description implies only that it is used to create a currency, but it does not mention related tools like list_currencies or update_currency for lookups or modifications.

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