get_usd_mxn_historical_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 of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool fetches historical data but lacks details on rate limits, authentication needs, data freshness, error handling, or pagination. For a data-fetching tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 well-structured and concise, with a clear purpose statement followed by brief Arg and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value, and there's no redundant information. It could be slightly more front-loaded by integrating the parameter explanation into the main description, but it's efficient overall.

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 (1 parameter, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is minimally adequate. The output schema existence means return values needn't be explained, but the description lacks context on data format, time periods, or error cases. It meets basic requirements but leaves room for improvement in completeness.

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 description adds minimal semantics for the 'limit' parameter, explaining it as 'Maximum number of recent data points to return (default: 30)'. With 0% schema description coverage, this partially compensates by clarifying the parameter's purpose and default. However, it doesn't detail constraints like valid ranges or what 'recent' means, leaving gaps in understanding.

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 historical USD/MXN exchange rate data from Banxico.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('historical USD/MXN exchange rate data'), and source ('from Banxico'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_latest_usd_mxn_rate' or 'get_date_range_data', which would require a 5.

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 'get_latest_usd_mxn_rate' for current rates or 'get_date_range_data' for date-based queries, nor does it specify use cases or exclusions. This leaves the agent without context for tool selection.

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