fx_daily

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Fetch' implies a read-only operation, but the description doesn't clarify authentication needs, rate limits, data freshness, error handling, or output format. It fails to disclose any behavioral traits beyond the basic action, leaving critical operational details unspecified.

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 extremely concise at just two words ('Fetch FX daily'), which is appropriate for a simple data retrieval tool. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, with no wasted words or redundant information. This minimalism is efficient, though it comes at the cost of completeness.

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 tool's moderate complexity (4 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't compensate for the lack of structured data: parameters are undocumented, behavioral traits are unspecified, and there's no output information. While concise, it fails to provide enough context for reliable agent use, especially compared to more detailed sibling tools.

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 input schema has 4 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the tool description adds no semantic information about any parameters. It doesn't explain what 'from_symbol' and 'to_symbol' represent (e.g., currency codes), the purpose of 'datatype' and 'outputsize', or provide examples. With no parameter guidance in either schema or description, the agent lacks essential context for correct invocation.

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 'Fetch FX daily' clearly indicates a retrieval action ('fetch') and specifies the resource type (FX/financial data) with a temporal scope ('daily'). However, it lacks specificity about what exactly is fetched (e.g., exchange rates, historical prices) and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'fx_intraday', 'fx_monthly', or 'fx_weekly', which all handle FX data at different frequencies.

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. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'fx_intraday' for intraday data or 'exchange_rate' for real-time rates, nor does it specify prerequisites, constraints, or typical use cases. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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