track_fx_get_name

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

The annotation readOnlyHint: true covers the read-only nature of this operation, and the description's 'Get' is consistent with that. The description adds no additional behavioral context (e.g., return format, error handling, out-of-bounds behavior), but it does not contradict the annotation. Given the annotation presence, a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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, concise sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action. However, it is under-specified rather than simply concise, which slightly reduces the score from a perfect 5, but it remains efficient.

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?

For a simple getter with two indices and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the return value (presumably a string), nor does it differentiate this tool from take_fx_get_name. With no output schema and zero parameter coverage, more context is needed for an agent to call this correctly.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the lack of parameter documentation. It does not. The description says nothing about track_index or fx_index, leaving the agent to rely on parameter names alone. This is insufficient given the zero 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 states a clear verb and resource ('get the name of an FX plugin'), but it is generic and does not specify that this applies to track FX versus take FX. The tool name track_fx_get_name disambiguates, but the description itself does not add that context. It is not a tautology, but it lacks specificity to distinguish from the sibling take_fx_get_name.

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 alternatives. The description does not mention the distinction between track FX and take FX, nor does it provide any conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions. An agent would have to infer usage solely from the tool name.

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