mcp2ws

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'SOAP method' which hints at a web service call, but doesn't describe what the tool does behaviorally (e.g., returns a list, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what format the output might be in). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 concise ('SOAP method: ListOfCurrenciesByCode'), which could be efficient, but it's under-specified rather than appropriately sized. It lacks essential details about the tool's function, making it feel incomplete rather than optimally brief. Every sentence should earn its place, but this single phrase doesn't provide enough value.

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?

Given the complexity (a SOAP method with no parameters but likely returning data), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., a list of currencies by code), how to interpret results, or any behavioral aspects. For a data retrieval tool in a context with many siblings, more detail is needed to be complete.

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 has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description doesn't need to add parameter information, and it doesn't contradict the schema. A baseline of 4 is appropriate since there are no parameters to explain.

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 'SOAP method: ListOfCurrenciesByCode' restates the tool name with minimal added value. It indicates this is a SOAP method but doesn't specify what it actually does (e.g., retrieves, lists, or returns currency information). Compared to sibling tools like 'CurrencyName' or 'ListOfCurrenciesByName', it doesn't clarify how this tool differs in purpose or scope.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'ListOfCurrenciesByName' and 'CurrencyName', there's no indication of when this specific tool is appropriate, what context it serves, or any prerequisites for its use.

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