kr-crypto-intelligence

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the tool as fetching a 'current' rate, implying real-time or latest data, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like rate limits, data sources, update frequency, or error handling. The description adds some context (e.g., it's for conversion purposes) but lacks details on operational constraints.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds contextual value without redundancy. Both sentences earn their place by clarifying usage, making it efficient and well-structured with zero waste.

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 low complexity (0 parameters, no annotations, but has an output schema), the description is reasonably complete. It explains what the tool does and its primary use case. Since an output schema exists, the description doesn't need to detail return values. However, it could benefit from more behavioral context, such as data freshness or limitations.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage, so no parameters need documentation. The description doesn't add parameter details beyond the schema, but this is acceptable given the lack of parameters. It implies the tool returns a rate for a fixed currency pair (USD/KRW), which aligns with the schema's simplicity.

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 purpose: 'Get current USD/KRW exchange rate.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('USD/KRW exchange rate'), making it unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_kimchi_premium' or 'get_stablecoin_premium', which might also involve exchange rates but focus on specific metrics.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: 'Essential for converting between Korean Won and US Dollar prices.' This implies it's the go-to tool for USD/KRW conversions. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among siblings, such as using 'get_kimchi_premium' for premium calculations instead.

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