get_date_range_data

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the tool retrieves data (implied read-only) and specifies a default series_id, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or response format beyond a vague 'Exchange rate data.' For a data-fetching tool with no annotations, this is insufficient.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with the purpose stated first. The Args and Returns sections are structured but slightly verbose; every sentence adds value, though 'Returns:' could be more concise. Overall, it's efficient with minimal waste.

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 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage and an output schema (implied by 'Has output schema: true'), the description is moderately complete. It explains parameters well but lacks behavioral context (e.g., authentication, errors). The output schema should cover return values, so the vague 'Exchange rate data' is acceptable, but overall gaps remain.

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 adds meaning by explaining each parameter: start_date and end_date formats (YYYY-MM-DD) and series_id's default value (SF63528 for USD/MXN). This clarifies beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't detail what series_id represents or list alternatives.

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 purpose: 'Get exchange rate data for a specific date range.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('exchange rate data'), and scope ('date range'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'get_usd_mxn_historical_data' or 'get_latest_usd_mxn_rate', which appear related.

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. The description doesn't mention sibling tools, prerequisites, or exclusions. It simply states what the tool does without contextual usage information.

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