stocks_list_currency

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states the core operation (retrieving unique currency values) but does not mention any other behavioral aspects, such as output format, sorting, pagination, or that it is a safe read operation. For a zero-parameter read tool, the minimal description is adequate, but it leaves minor uncertainties about the exact return type or structure.

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, front-loaded sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any waste. It is appropriately concise for a simple, parameterless tool, and every word contributes to understanding.

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 complete enough to allow correct invocation. It clearly communicates the resource (stocks) and the action (getting unique currency values). The only minor gap is that it doesn't explicitly state the returned data type (e.g., an array of strings), but this is easily inferred from 'currency values'. Overall, the information provided suffices.

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 provides no property details. The instruction sets a baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools. The description adds meaning by clarifying that the output is a list of unique currency values, which the empty schema cannot convey. This meets the baseline without requiring further parameter explanation.

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 currency values for stocks'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes this tool from similar list tools like stocks_list_market or stocks_list_country by specifying the currency dimension, and from futures_list_currency or etf_list_currency by the resource (stocks).

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. There are many sibling list tools covering different asset classes (ETF, futures) and different dimensions (market, country, sector), but the description does not mention any conditions for choosing this one. An agent must infer usage solely from the name.

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