getExchangeRate

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

The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc.): it discloses the 1-minute refresh cycle, the reference nature of the rate, and the validFrom/validUntil time window. No contradiction with annotations is present.

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 concise and well-structured with bullet points. Each sentence adds meaningful information: update frequency, reference vs actual rate, dateTime behavior, response window, and rate limit group. No redundant or verbose content.

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 tool's simplicity (single parameter, no output schema), the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, parameter behavior, return value semantics (validFrom/Until), rate limits, and usage caveats. It is complete for an agent to correctly invoke the tool.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the behavior of the dateTime parameter and noting the reference rate nature, which is not fully captured in the schema. It does not need to re-document base/quote currencies since those are already well described.

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 identifies the tool as querying KRW ↔ USD exchange rates. It uses a specific verb (조회) and resource (환율), and the scope is explicitly limited to the KRW/USD pair, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like getMarketIndicatorPrices or getOrderbook.

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 useful context: the rate is a reference rate with a 1-minute update interval, not the actual transaction rate, and if dateTime is omitted, the current rate is returned. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or suggest alternatives like the actual trading rate source.

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