Turkey Premium Index: what lira buyers pay above the world price, with TRY reference prices from Turkish venues

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

Annotations already signal readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description adds relevant behavioral context: results form a live board, the index uses the official exchange rate, and history_days yields 15-minute history. No description content contradicts the annotations.

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 front-loaded with the trigger condition and then gives the return payload in a dense, structured way. It is long because the output is rich and there is no output schema, but each clause contributes information.

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?

For a complex tool with no output schema, the description covers the index, score, regime, averages, streak, reference prices, venue status, spread, depth, and implied premium. The main gap is that it does not state the default pair or default history behavior when parameters are omitted.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description mostly restates the schema's pair and history_days semantics, adding only that history is for 'one pair'. It does not materially clarify defaults or optionality beyond the schema.

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 identifies a specific resource (Turkey Premium Index and TRY reference prices), a concrete action (returns the live board), and a distinctive scope: Bitcoin/Ether/USDT prices in Turkish lira, the USDT/TRY rate, and Turkish venue premiums. It is easily distinguishable from siblings such as get_coinbase_premium by naming Turkish venues and the TRY perspective.

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 explicitly lists the triggering user intents: Turkish lira prices, Turkey premium, USDT/TRY rate, dollar premium in Turkey, and which Turkish exchanges trade above or below the global price. It does not name alternatives or give explicit when-not-to-use guidance, so it falls just short of a 5.

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