fx_weekly

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 operation, but it doesn't specify any behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication needs, data freshness, or error handling. This is inadequate for a tool with parameters and no structured safety hints.

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 with just two words, 'Fetch FX weekly', which is front-loaded and wastes no space. While it may be under-specified, it earns full marks for brevity and lack of redundancy.

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 complexity (3 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema, and many sibling tools), the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how to interpret parameters, or differentiate it from similar tools, making it inadequate for effective agent use.

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 0%, meaning parameters 'from_symbol', 'to_symbol', and 'datatype' are undocumented in the schema. The description adds no information about these parameters—no explanations of what they represent, valid formats, or examples. This fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 weekly' states a verb ('Fetch') and resource ('FX weekly'), making the basic purpose clear. However, it's vague about what 'FX weekly' specifically entails (e.g., foreign exchange rates, data, or reports) and doesn't distinguish it from sibling tools like 'fx_daily', 'fx_monthly', or 'exchange_rate', leaving ambiguity in scope.

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 siblings such as 'fx_daily', 'fx_monthly', and 'exchange_rate', the description lacks any indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based on naming alone.

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