finance_financial_advice_foreign_exchange_au

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

The description discloses the execution mechanism (domain-agent dispatcher) and auth scoping (JWT, tenant, company), but it does not explain side effects, data modifications, or what happens despite the destructiveHint annotation. This leaves significant behavioral ambiguity.

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 brief and well-structured, with a clear action statement, routing context, and a simple parameter list. There is no unnecessary verbosity or repetition.

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 description omits what the action actually returns, expected input formats, error behavior, or any operational outcome. It is sufficient to invoke the tool superficially but not to understand the full context of the call.

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?

Both parameters are given minimal descriptions: 'message' as free-text objective and 'inputs' as optional JSON string. This provides basic meaning, but with 0% schema coverage it lacks examples, constraints, or the relationship between the two parameters.

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 names the specific finance domain agent action to run, 'financial_advice_foreign_exchange_au', and identifies it as a finance-domain tool. It is distinguishable from the numerous sibling tools by its explicit action name and domain association, even though it does not elaborate on the exact nature of the financial advice.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus any alternative. It merely describes routing through a dispatcher and does not mention conditions, prerequisites, or comparison with similar dispatch tools.

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