Get TRM history with statistics

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the ~5-year maximum span, the sampling behavior (full series up to 90 points, monthly-sampled otherwise), and exactly what statistics are returned. It omits any auth, rate-limit, or error behavior, but the shape and limits of the response are unusually well described.

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?

Three dense sentences, front-loaded with the core action and limit, followed by return-shape and source details. Every sentence contributes; only the dataset ID citation is arguably incidental to invocation.

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 and no annotations, the description compensates well by specifying the return contents (min, max, average, percent change) and the conditional full-vs-monthly-sampled series behavior. A note on date ordering or the failure mode for out-of-range dates is the only notable 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 description coverage is 100%, so the format and inclusivity of both date parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds the ~5-year maximum range constraint, which is meaningful, but no further syntax or edge-case semantics beyond the 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get the TRM (USD/COP) daily series between two dates') plus the scope and output content (statistics). It is clearly distinct from a single-rate sibling via the two-date range framing, though it never explicitly names get_trm or convert_usd_cop as the alternatives.

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 'between two dates' framing and the 'max ~5 years' limit, which tells the agent when the tool is applicable. There is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use guidance or routing to the sibling tools for single-date or conversion needs.

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