get_rate

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

No annotations exist, so description carries full burden. It mentions publication schedule but does not disclose error handling (e.g., invalid date, missing currency) or describe the return format/response structure. Partially transparent but missing key behavioral details.

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 concise (~80 words), front-loaded with the primary purpose, and every sentence provides meaningful context without redundancy. Efficiently structured for quick comprehension.

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 absence of an output schema and the presence of sibling tools, the description explains table usage and date behavior well but omits the return value structure (e.g., response fields). Lacks completeness for an agent to fully understand the output.

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 coverage is 100% with parameter descriptions. The description adds significant value beyond schema by explaining the purpose of each table, default date behavior, and appropriate usage contexts for each table parameter.

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 it gets the NBP exchange rate for a single currency vs PLN, optionally on a specific date. It distinguishes between table types (A, B, C) with specific purposes, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_rate_history.

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?

Provides clear guidance on when to use each table (A for accounting, B for less common, C for FX transactions) and notes weekend/holiday unavailability. However, it does not directly compare with sibling tools or specify when not to use this tool.

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