forex_prices

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It only says 'Get historical price data', revealing nothing about response format, pagination, rate limits, or how the 'frame' parameter affects the data aggregation. It is essentially a restatement of the tool name, providing no additional behavioral context.

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 short sentence, which is compact, but it is under-specified. It adds no value beyond the tool name and fails to include any usage cues. While concise, it is not appropriately sized because it lacks substance that could be added without sacrificing brevity.

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?

There is no output schema, no annotations, and the description is minimal. For a tool that returns historical price data, an agent needs to know the shape of the response, default date ranges, and how parameters interact. The description omits all of this, leaving the tool severely incomplete for correct invocation.

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%, so the input schema already documents all four parameters ('ticker', 'from', 'to', 'frame'). The description does not add any extra meaning or relationships between parameters beyond what the schema provides. Per the rubric, with high coverage the baseline is 3, and no additional clarification is offered.

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 'Get' and the resource 'historical price data for a forex pair'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'forex_quote' (current price) and other asset price tools by specifying 'forex pair'. It is clear enough, though it could be more explicit about what 'historical' entails (e.g., time series vs single point).

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?

No usage context is provided. The description gives no indication of when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'forex_quote' for current prices or 'forex_tickers' for list of pairs. There are no explicit exclusions or conditions. An agent must infer the appropriate use, which is minimal.

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