fx_intraday

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Fetch FX intraday', which implies a read operation but doesn't cover critical aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, data freshness, or error handling. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves in practice.

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 ('Fetch FX intraday'), which is front-loaded but under-specified. While it avoids unnecessary words, it lacks essential details that would make it useful. Conciseness alone doesn't justify a higher score when the content is insufficient.

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 complexity (5 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'FX intraday' data includes, how parameters affect the fetch, or what the return values look like. This makes it inadequate for an agent to use the tool effectively.

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 5 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the description adds no semantic information about them. Parameters like 'interval', 'outputsize', and 'datatype' are undefined, making it unclear what values are expected or their effects. The description fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 intraday' states a verb ('Fetch') and resource ('FX intraday'), but it's vague about what 'FX intraday' entails—it could mean exchange rates, prices, or other data. It doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'fx_daily' or 'crypto_intraday', leaving ambiguity. This is a tautology that mostly restates the tool name without clarifying the specific purpose.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools for financial data (e.g., 'fx_daily', 'crypto_intraday'), the description lacks any context, exclusions, or prerequisites. This absence makes it difficult for an agent to choose appropriately among similar tools.

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