forex_list_exchange

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The verb 'Get' implies a read-only, non-mutating operation, but the description does not explicitly state read-only behavior, auth requirements, or any side effects. For a simple enumeration tool this is adequate, but it adds no context beyond the literal operation.

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, tightly worded sentence. Every word carries meaning, and the resource and scope are front-loaded. There is no waste or redundancy.

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 annotation, no output schema), the description adequately communicates what the agent will receive (unique exchange values). It does not specify the exact return format (e.g., array of strings) but that is a minor omission for a straightforward enumeration tool.

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 schema has zero parameters, so the description has no parameter semantics to explain. Per the baseline rule for 0 parameters, a score of 4 is appropriate; the description correctly focuses on the output concept rather than inputs.

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 a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('unique exchange values for forex'). It is distinct from siblings like futures_list_exchange and indices_list_exchange because it explicitly scopes to forex, and from forex_tickers which lists tickers rather than exchange values.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when to choose this over forex_list_country, forex_list_rating, or other forex listing tools, nor does it provide any context about typical use cases. The usage intent is implied but not explicit.

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