Convert currency

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the data source (Bank of Canada daily rates), the methodology (cross-rated through CAD), and the limitations (indicative daily averages, not transactional quotes). This is strong transparency for a simple read-only conversion 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?

The description is a single, focused sentence that states purpose and key caveats without fluff. It is front-loaded with the verb and noun phrase, and every clause adds value.

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 three-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: what it does, the data source, and the limitations of the result. It could optionally mention the exact response format, but that is not critical for basic usage.

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?

The input schema already covers all three parameters (amount, from, to) with clear descriptions, so 100% schema coverage is achieved. The description adds minimal extra parameter-specific context—only the 'cross-rated through CAD' hint, which is a general behavior note rather than a parameter clarification. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the verb ('Convert'), the resource ('an amount between currencies'), and the data source ('latest Bank of Canada daily rates'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It also distinguishes itself from siblings like latest_fx_rates by focusing on conversion rather than just returning rates.

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 description gives useful context—indicative daily averages, not transactional quotes—which implicitly tells users this is not for real-time trading or guaranteed quotes. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternatives like latest_fx_rates or explain when to prefer this tool over those siblings.

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