math_currency_converter_history

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that conversion uses daily end-of-day FX rates (non-real-time) and offers history, chart, and JSON output. However, it does not explain the response format, any destructive actions (likely none), or prerequisites like authentication. Provides moderate behavioral context but lacks completeness.

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 paragraph that front-loads the core purpose ('Convert between 31 world currencies') then lists features and a reference to describe_tool. No redundant sentences, but could be better organized with bullet points or separate sections for clarity.

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?

The tool has moderate complexity (history chart, percentage change, inverse rate, JSON endpoint) but no output schema. The description mentions a JSON API endpoint but does not detail the return structure or what the 'interactive history chart' means in terms of returned data. Missing output explanation leaves the agent underinformed.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage and no enums. The description mentions '31 world currencies' but does not specify that 'from' and 'to' are currency codes or list them. 'amount' is described as integer but no unit or valid range. Description does not compensate for the lack of schema descriptions, leaving the agent to guess parameter formats.

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 it is a 'Currency Converter' that converts between 31 world currencies using daily FX rates, and distinguishes itself from siblings like math_currency_converter_convert by mentioning interactive history chart, percentage change overlay, inverse rate, and JSON API endpoint. The verb 'Convert' and resource '31 world currencies' with additional features make the purpose specific and clear.

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 historical currency conversion with charts and API, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs. alternatives like math_currency_converter_convert. It suggests using describe_tool for full guidance, which shifts the burden but does not provide direct when-to-use or when-not-to-use context.

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