FX rates used by cap math (global data)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety and data-source scope are covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond an endpoint path — no pagination behavior, no rate-limit or freshness notes, and no indication of what the global dataset contains. Against the lower bar set by annotations, it still contributes almost nothing.

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 single sentence is short and free of padding, so there is no verbosity problem. But it is a fragment that duplicates the title verbatim and appends a path, meaning its brevity comes from under-specification rather than tight editing.

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 three-parameter, no-required-args tool with no output schema, an agent needs at least to know whether omitting base/quote returns a full matrix and what limit bounds. None of that is covered. The definition is callable only by guessing.

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 carries the full burden for three parameters (base, quote, limit). It says nothing about them. However, the rules state that 0-param baseline is 4; here there are three parameters with constraints in the schema (3-char ISO codes, limit 1-500) that are inferable from types, which keeps this just above the floor rather than at 1-2.

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 is a verbatim restatement of the title plus an HTTP path: "FX rates used by cap math (global data) (GET /v1/fx-rates)." It signals the resource (FX rates) but uses a passive participle rather than a verb, so it never states the operation an agent performs (list/retrieve). No sibling is distinguished, even though operator_loadFxRates is closely related.

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 guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of the obvious alternative, operator_loadFxRates. The parenthetical "used by cap math" hints at consumption context but does not tell an agent when to call this versus the operator tool. Usage must be entirely inferred.

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