Currency and Country Metadata

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

Discloses HTTP method, credit cost, caching behavior, and response structure (currency and country_metadata). Annotations already declare readOnly and openWorld, but description adds operational details beyond that.

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?

Description is clear and front-loaded with purpose, but could be slightly more concise. Some redundancy in explaining force_refresh credit consumption, but overall well-structured.

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, the description adequately explains returned fields and behavior under different parameter usage. Also references sibling tools, providing complete context for an agent.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds context: ip selects the IP used to derive country and currency, force_refresh bypasses cached data and can consume credits. This extra value warrants a 4.

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 is a read-only lookup for currency and country metadata via GET /v3/ipgeo. It distinguishes from sibling tool lookup_ip by noting that lookup_ip returns these fields plus other IP data.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: works on free/paid plans, costs 1 credit per lookup, when to omit ip for caller IP, when to use force_refresh, and contrasts with lookup_ip for broader data needs.

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