get_supported_currencies

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. The description states 'Get list', which implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't disclose whether authentication is required, whether results are live or cached, the response format, or any potential failure modes. This is a minimal disclosure that falls short of full transparency.

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 one short sentence, front-loaded with the action 'Get' and the resource 'list of all supported display currencies'. Every word earns its place, and there is no unnecessary detail or redundancy. It exemplifies concise, effective writing.

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?

The tool is simple with no parameters and no output schema, but the description still leaves some open questions, such as the exact return format (e.g., array of currency codes?) and whether these currencies correspond to the values accepted by set_display_currency. Given the simplicity, the description is adequate for basic understanding but lacks enough context to be considered fully complete without further inference.

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 by the rubric baseline, this dimension earns a 4. The description adds no parameter information, but none is needed. The schema also confirms no properties, and the description fully covers the absence of parameters.

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 gets a list of all supported display currencies, using the specific verb 'Get' and identifying the resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like set_display_currency and get_realtime_price by focusing on the list of supported display currencies. However, it is a simple sentence without additional scope or caveats, so it doesn't reach the level of the highest examples.

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, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. Usage is only implied by the function name and description—use it when you need the supported display currencies—but there is no explicit 'when to use' or comparison with related tools like set_display_currency.

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