Obtener cotización de moneda

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description usefully names AFIP as the external data source, reinforcing the open-world nature. However, it says nothing about behavior for non-business days, unsupported dates, or unknown currency IDs, which are the realistic failure modes for a rate lookup.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the resource and the two scoping dimensions appear immediately.

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 two-parameter read tool with annotations covering the safety profile, the essentials are present. But with no output schema, the description should indicate what comes back (e.g. a buy/sell rate pair), and it omits that entirely.

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% and both parameters carry examples ('DOL', '20250221') plus a format pattern, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only restates 'una moneda específica' and 'una fecha determinada' without adding format or validity detail.

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?

Specific verb (obtiene) plus resource (cotización de una moneda) plus source (AFIP), scoped to a single currency and date. It implicitly contrasts with the sibling get_currencies_types (which lists currency types rather than quoting one), but never names that distinction.

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 when-to-use / when-not guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no reference to alternatives such as get_currencies_types for discovering valid MonId values. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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