convert_currency

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers little. It doesn't say whether the returned estimate is a live rate or a cached/sampled one, whether it reflects a spread, whether it refreshes, or whether any call is idempotent/free. "Estimation" implies a non-binding quote, but that is inference, not disclosure.

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?

A single nine-word sentence with no filler and no buried clauses. It is efficient, though the brevity here is partly under-specification rather than disciplined editing.

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?

Two required params, no annotations, and no output schema: the description is the only place to explain what comes back (a rate? a converted amount? both?) and it says nothing. For a conversion tool whose whole value is the returned figure, that is a material omission.

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%: `amount` is documented as major units (not cents) and `currency` as a fiat code, both better than the tool description manages. The description adds no parameter meaning at all, so the baseline 3 applies. It notably fails to resolve which parameter's denomination the output is expressed in.

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 verb and resource are clear ("Get currency conversion estimation between fiat and Bitcoin"), which distinguishes it from siblings like send_onchain or create_invoice. However, the direction of the conversion is genuinely ambiguous: with params `amount` and `currency` (a fiat code) and no stated source/target, an agent cannot tell whether it passes a fiat amount and receives BTC or vice versa. The sibling get_realtime_price is closely related and not named.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives are named. Notably, the agent gets no help distinguishing this from get_realtime_price or get_price_history, which are the obvious competing calls for price/rate information. The word "estimation" hints at a quote-like result but the description never says when to prefer it.

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