Get exchange rates

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does well by stating exactly what the tool returns and explicitly what it excludes (BCU and interbank quotes), giving a clear model of the tool's behavior. It does not mention error handling, side effects, or data freshness, but the query-like nature and detailed output list provide solid 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 compact and front-loaded, opening with the core deliverable and then adding currency format and exclusions in the second sentence. Every clause adds value, with no redundancy or filler.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is quite complete: it enumerates the included data items (average, best house, spread, full list) and states exclusions. Minor gaps like output format or behavior on unsupported currencies are acceptable given the low complexity and the level of detail already present.

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%: the schema already documents the currency parameter as an ISO code with examples. The description repeats the same examples (USD, EUR, ARS, BRL) and adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, which meets the high-coverage baseline of 3.

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 identifies the operation: retrieving current buy/sell rates for a currency across Uruguayan exchange houses, and enumerates the specific outputs (market average, best buy/sell house, lowest spread, full per-house list). It also distinguishes itself by explicitly excluding BCU and interbank quotes, making it easy to differentiate from sibling tools like best_house or convert.

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 implies when to use the tool by stating it provides current rates for a currency and lists what data is returned, but it does not explicitly mention sibling alternatives or provide when-to-use versus when-not-to-use guidance. The exclusion of BCU and interbank quotes gives some scope context, but not enough to route an agent away from potentially overlapping tools like best_house or daily_summary.

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