etf_list_currency

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action and resource but does not mention any side effects, return format, or limitations. For a read-only listing tool, it is acceptable but lacks explicit statements about output type or special behavior.

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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It is concise and front-loads the core action and resource, making it efficient for an agent to parse.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is fairly complete but could be more explicit about the output format (e.g., a list of currency codes). It doesn't mention whether it returns a list or an array, but that is likely evident from the tool's purpose. Overall, it is adequate but could add a word about the output.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema already fully documents them (trivially). The description adds no additional parameter meaning, but that is not needed since there are none. The baseline of 4 is appropriate because the description does not need to clarify parameters.

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 action ('Get') and the resource ('unique currency values for ETFs'), which is both specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like etf_list_market and etf_list_country. There is no ambiguity about what this tool does.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like etf_list_market or stocks_list_currency. There is no mention of prerequisites, scenarios, or exclusions. The intended use is implied by the name but not explicitly stated.

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