get_currency_rates

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get' implies a read operation, but the description does not mention default-date behavior, response format, data source caveats, or any limiting conditions. It mostly restates the parameter semantics rather than exposing runtime behavior.

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 a single well-structured sentence with no filler. The core action and resource are front-loaded, and the three rate types are enumerated compactly. Every phrase contributes useful information.

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?

For a simple two-parameter read tool with complete schema coverage, the description is mostly adequate. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it leaves the agent without any indication of the response shape or behavioral details such as how the optional date is resolved. This is a moderate gap, not a severe one.

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 100%, so the parameters are already fully documented. The description adds marginal meaning by pairing each rate type with its source ('Central Bank of Russia', 'futures'), but this largely mirrors the schema's own descriptions and adds no new formatting or syntax details.

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 states a specific verb and resource — 'Get currency exchange rates' — and further specifies three distinct rate types (MOEX fixing, CBRF, indicative futures rates). This is clear and unlikely to be confused with the generic market-data siblings, though it does not explicitly name or distinguish itself from a sibling alternative.

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 given about when to use this tool versus alternatives, when not to use it, or which sibling might be more appropriate for other rate-related needs. The description implies a scenario where currency rates are wanted, but provides no explicit selection criteria.

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