get_exchanges

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

The annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, which the description doesn't contradict. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond this—it specifies 'known by Massive.com' (implying a curated list), but doesn't mention pagination, rate limits, or authentication needs. With annotations covering safety, this earns a baseline 3.

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, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple listing tool and front-loads the core purpose immediately.

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 low complexity (a read-only list), annotations provide safety context, and an output schema exists (so return values are documented elsewhere), the description is minimally complete. However, the lack of parameter guidance and sibling differentiation leaves gaps in contextual understanding.

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 for undocumented parameters. It mentions none of the three parameters (asset_class, locale, params), leaving their purpose and usage completely unexplained. This is inadequate given the coverage gap.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('exchanges known by Massive.com'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from its many siblings (like 'list_tickers' or 'list_conditions'), 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. With 60+ sibling tools, there's no mention of when this is appropriate (e.g., for exchange metadata vs. other data types) or what distinguishes it from similar listing tools.

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