Retrieve available forex currency pairs as a compact table to find pair symbols. Returns text by default, or set format=json for structured data.
Returns available currency pairs as a compact table. Use to find forex pair symbols. Text default; set format=json for structured data.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| format | No | Output format (default: text) | |
| max_results | No | Maximum currency pairs to return |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.6Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the return format (compact table, text by default, json on request), which is useful, but says nothing about rate limits, permissions, pagination, or the semantics of max_results truncation.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with what is returned, then the use case, then the format option. No filler or redundancy; each sentence earns its place.
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 no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, use case, and output format sufficiently to call it correctly. It could say a bit more about how max_results behaves when truncated, but nothing essential is missing.
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 100% and both parameters are documented there, including the format enum and its default. The description only restates the default and the json switch, adding no meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 and resource ('Returns available currency pairs') and the output shape ('compact table'), which is enough for an agent to know this is the forex-symbol lookup tool. It doesn't explicitly contrast itself with any sibling, but none of the stock-oriented siblings overlap, so disambiguation is implicit rather than stated.
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?
'Use to find forex pair symbols' gives a clear positive trigger for invoking the tool. There is no statement of when not to use it or which sibling to prefer for related data, but for a single-purpose lookup tool the context is adequate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.