futures_list_currency

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation ('Get') but does not specify the return format (e.g., a list of strings), any potential pagination, or other behavioral traits. For a trivial no-parameter tool this is less critical, but it still lacks explicit disclosure about what the caller should expect.

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, front-loaded with the action, and contains no filler. It is appropriately concise for such a simple tool, though it could have included more contextual detail without becoming verbose.

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 tool with no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is mostly adequate but falls short of fully complete. It does not mention that the tool returns a list (presumably of currency codes) or specify any output characteristics. Given the simplicity of the tool, this is a minor gap, but the description could have been slightly more detailed to remove ambiguity.

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 and the schema is empty (100% coverage). With no parameters to explain, the baseline score of 4 applies. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning because there are none, but this is acceptable given the absence of 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 the tool's action ('Get'), resource ('unique currency values'), and domain ('futures'). It is unambiguous and not a tautology, though it closely mirrors the tool name. It does not explicitly differentiate from similar tools for other asset classes (e.g., etf_list_currency), but its purpose is still clear.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as futures_list_exchange or stocks_list_currency. The description gives no context about the intended use case or decision criteria, leaving the agent to infer from the tool name alone.

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