get_gold

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

The description adds context beyond schema: publishing frequency (daily on business days) and default behavior (latest fixing). However, it does not disclose error handling for missing dates, authentication needs, or rate limits. With no annotations, this is adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

Two sentences, no filler. Every word adds value: verb, resource, unit, currency, fineness, date range, and publication frequency. Efficient and front-loaded.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description explains the return value (price in PLN per gram). However, it does not specify the return format (e.g., single number vs. object with metadata), which would be helpful for an agent. Still, the essential info is present.

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% for the single parameter, so baseline is 3. The description reinforces the parameter's purpose (specific date) and default behavior, but adds no additional syntax or constraints beyond what the schema already provides.

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 explicitly states "Get the NBP gold fixing" with specific attributes (PLN per gram, 1000-fineness gold) and date handling. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like get_gold_history (history) and get_rate (different resource).

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 indicates the tool is for a specific date or the latest fixing, and notes publication on business days. It does not explicitly exclude uses or compare to alternatives, but the context from sibling names (e.g., get_gold_history) implies usage scope.

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