convertir

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It never says whether the tool fetches live rates (network call) or computes from a cached rate, whether it is read-only/side-effect free, how fresh the rate is, or what happens with unsupported currency codes — significant gaps for an unannotated tool.

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?

Two compact sentences with no filler, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the source qualifier. Slightly too terse given the ambiguity it leaves, but nothing is wasted.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage across 4 parameters, the description should explain what the result looks like (converted amount? rate used?) and behavior on invalid currencies. It does neither, leaving the agent unable to fully predict 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It usefully names the accepted currency set for 'de'/'a' (though not that they are the from/to direction) and documents 'fuente' with its two values and default 'bcv'. That is partial coverage; 'monto' is only implied and directionality of de/a is left ambiguous.

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?

States a specific verb ('Convierte') and resource ('un monto entre VES, USD, EUR y USDT'), so an agent knows this is a currency-conversion tool. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the siblings tasa_bcv/tasa_p2p/brecha_cambiaria, which also deal with rates but are not mentioned.

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 two fuente values ('bcv' oficial vs 'p2p' mercado) give a hint about which source variant to pick when converting. But there is no explicit when-to-use guidance versus the sibling rate tools, and no statement of prerequisites or error conditions.

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