filter_exchanges

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get a list' without mentioning pagination defaults (limit/offset), how filters interact, whether results are sorted, or any side effects. Minimal transparency for a tool with a nested filter object.

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 that is not verbose, but it is too generic for a tool with such a rich schema. It lacks structured enumeration of key capabilities, making it less useful despite being concise.

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 absence of an output schema and the complexity of nested filters/rankings, the description should explain return formats, default pagination, or filter semantics. It does not, leaving the agent to infer critical operational details from the schema alone, which is insufficient.

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 80% of parameters with descriptions, and the description adds examples of filter types (volume, transactions, active users) but does not explain specific parameter mechanics beyond what the schema provides. This matches the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 retrieves a list of exchanges with filtering capabilities, specifying resource ('exchanges') and purpose ('based on various filters'). This distinguishes it from sibling filtering tools like filter_tokens and filter_pairs.

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 use for filtering exchanges based on metrics, but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. It provides no comparison with sibling filter tools.

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