TCMB döviz kurları (günlük bülten)

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering safety. The description adds value by specifying the exact content (all currencies, buy/sell and effective rates in TL) and the default date behavior when no date is provided. This goes beyond what annotations convey, though it does not discuss other behaviors like rate limits or response structure, which is acceptable given the output schema exists.

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 three short sentences, with the core purpose front-loaded in both Turkish and English. It contains no filler, and each sentence adds meaningful information (what it returns, all currencies, default date). The bilingual format is efficient for agents operating across languages.

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 simple read-only tool with one optional parameter, full schema coverage, an existing output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description provides all essential context: purpose, scope (all currencies), and default date behavior. Nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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 schema covers 100% of the single optional parameter 'tarih', including its pattern and default behavior ('Boş bırakılırsa bugünkü (son) bülten'). The description repeats this default ('Tarih verilmezse bugünkü bülten') without adding new syntax or format details. Since schema coverage is high and the description adds no extra semantics, the baseline 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 clearly states the tool provides daily indicative FX rates from the Turkish central bank, for all currencies, with buy/sell and effective buy/sell in TL. It uses a specific verb ('günlük gösterge döviz kurları') and resource, and mentions 'all currencies', which implicitly differentiates from the sibling 'tcmb_kur' (likely single-currency). However, it does not explicitly name the sibling or explain the distinction, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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 usage for all-currency FX rates but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'tcmb_kur'. It also provides a clear default behavior for the optional date parameter ('Tarih verilmezse bugünkü bülten'), which helps with invocation but not with tool selection. No exclusions or alternative routing are mentioned.

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