finnhub_forex_data

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It correctly identifies operations as non-mutating reads ('List', 'Get'), which is useful. However, it does not disclose authentication needs, rate limits, error behavior, or what happens when required parameters are omitted. The transparency is minimal but not misleading.

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 concise and well-structured: a one-sentence overview followed by a bulleted operation list. Every line earns its place, and there is no repetition or filler. It is easy to scan and parse.

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 description is incomplete for a tool with 8 parameters and 4 operations. It does not define parameter–operation dependencies or the purpose of the 'project' parameter. Even with an output schema available, the agent cannot reliably assemble valid calls without guessing. The operation list provides structure but not sufficient detail.

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%, so the description must compensate. It gives hints: 'base currency' maps to base, 'an exchange' maps to exchange, and 'historical OHLCV' implies symbol/resolution/timestamps for candles. But it fails to explain the 'project' parameter, does not specify which operation uses which parameters, and lacks acceptable values. This is insufficient for 8 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's domain ('Foreign exchange rates, symbols, and candles') and enumerates four specific operations with distinct verbs (list, get). This distinguishes it unambiguously from sibling tools in other financial data domains (stocks, crypto, news). The operation list provides precise resource-level clarity.

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?

There is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any mention of exclusions or prerequisite parameters (e.g., exchange needed for get_forex_symbols). The operation names imply their own use, but the description does not help an agent decide between this and other Finnhub data tools.

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